Freedom from violence, oppression, and exploitation - A national strategy against men's violence against women, domestic violence, exploitation in prostitution and human trafficking, as well as honor-related violence and oppression

Sara Gille (SD)

Madam Speaker! I begin by moving to approve the committee's proposal in the report.

To be free from violence, oppression, and exploitation should be a given in a country like Sweden. Behind every figure in the statistics is a human being. It could be a woman living in fear of the man she shares her life with, a child growing up in a home where violence is part of everyday life, a young girl who is not allowed to decide over her own life and her future, or a person who is exploited in prostitution or human trafficking and treated as a commodity.

That is why the work against men's violence against women, against violence in close relationships, against prostitution, against human trafficking, and against honor-related violence and oppression belongs to society's most important tasks. Sverigedemokraterna have for a long time pushed for honor-related violence and oppression to be treated as a separate issue. Therefore, we welcome that this has now received its own gender equality policy sub-goal.

Madam President! Men's violence against women is still one of our greatest societal problems. Despite many years of work against this violence, women are still being killed by men they have or have had a relationship with. In every such case, there are relatives whose lives are shattered and children who lose their sense of security. Violence in close relationships often occurs behind closed doors. For many victims, it is the fear, the dependency, and the shame that make it difficult to leave the relationship.

But violence is not always about punches and kicks. Psychological violence, threats, isolation, and economic control can also make it difficult to leave a relationship. For many women, it is about economics. Not being allowed to work, not having access to one's own money, or being made completely dependent on the one who perpetrates the violence can be at least as effective as blows in preventing someone from leaving a destructive relationship. Economic violence is not always visible outwardly, but the consequences can be devastating. It can involve debt and economic control and a lack of opportunity to build a life of one's own after finally succeeding in leaving the relationship.

Madam President! We must never get used to it. We must never accept that violence, threats, and control become something normal. Far too many women and children have testified that they have sought help but have not been taken seriously. We have seen cases where signals have been missed and authorities have failed to cooperate. The consequences of such failures are often lifelong for those affected. Therefore, society must become better at detecting vulnerability early and acting before the violence has time to escalate.

The Sweden Democrats therefore want to see earlier interventions and a stronger focus on cooperation between school, social services, healthcare, and the justice system. No person should fall through the cracks because authorities do not speak with each other.

Madam Speaker! Honor-related violence and oppression is not just any kind of violence. It is a form of oppression where the individual's freedom is subordinated to the family's and the kin's so-called honor. We must never let the fear of speaking plainly become greater than the will to protect the people who live in the midst of the oppression. Honor-based oppression is built on norms that restrict people's freedom and which stand in direct conflict with the values of equality and self-determination that our society rests upon.

The Sweden Democrats believe that society must dare to be clear. Therefore, we have proposed a ban on the veil, hijab, niqab, and burka. We believe that these garments are expressions of norms that limit the freedom of women and girls and that society must stand up for the women and girls who want to live free from control, oppression, restrictions, and honor norms. One cannot fight honor oppression and at the same time turn a blind eye to the norms and expressions that in many environments are used to maintain it. No girl should have to choose between her freedom and her family.

Madam President! For the Sweden Democrats, this is ultimately about fewer women being subjected to violence, more children receiving help in time, and more people being able to live free from threats, control, and oppression. Children and young people living under threat, control, and violence shall be detected earlier. Children who witness violence are also crime victims and must be met as such. School, social services, healthcare, and the justice system must have both the knowledge and the courage to act.

The Sweden Democrats want to see a greater focus on the perpetrators of violence. Society must become better at breaking recidivism and preventing new crimes. It is not reasonable that women and children should repeatedly have to live in fear because society fails to break the cycle of violence.

We must also see the connection between prostitution, human trafficking and organized crime. No human being should be reduced to a commodity. Therefore, the fight against prostitution and human trafficking must also be part of the fight against organized crime.

Madam President! A society is tested not when everything works. A society is tested when people are at their most vulnerable. Then we must stand on their side, on the women's side, on the children's side, on the side of the vulnerable, and that is what the Sweden Democrats will continue to do.

Madam Speaker! This is my last debate in this parliamentary session. I would therefore like to take the opportunity to thank the chair and the committee secretariat. I also want to thank my committee colleagues. We have not always agreed, and we have sometimes had very different views on both problems and solutions. But I still want to extend a warm thank you to them for many important discussions and good cooperation.

With that, I wish the presidium, the secretariat and all members a very happy summer.

(Applause)

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

Sofia Amloh (S)

Madam President! The Swedish National Audit Office now intends to audit the work of the Swedish Migration Agency, the Swedish Police Authority, and the Swedish Prosecution Authority against human trafficking for sexual purposes. It has been reported very clearly in investigations and reports, and also by the Gender Equality Authority, what in the legislation makes it difficult to obtain convictions.

It is largely risk-free to conduct organized human trafficking in Sweden. Women and children, the most vulnerable, fall victim to today's slavery. That is what we heard in the member's speech.

This is a serious, organized crime that is very profitable. My question to the member and the Sweden Democrats, Madam Speaker, is why nothing has been done regarding the legislation so that there can be more convictions and so that it is no longer risk-free and largely legal to conduct organized human trafficking in Sweden.

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

Sara Gille (SD)

Madam Speaker! It is absolutely a very important question the member is asking. This is about people being exploited, and it is appalling. It is nothing that we stand behind at all, but we believe that it needs to be fought with an iron fist. But it is still interesting that the member asks the question to us when the member themselves is part of a party that did not do enough for these women during the time the member's party sat in government.

I would like to throw the question back. Why did the member not do enough when the opportunity existed?

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

Sofia Amloh (S)

Madam Speaker! The Sweden Democrats constitute the entire government's basis. Nothing comes to this chamber without the Sweden Democrats' approval. Everything must pass through them, because if they do not stand behind what the government puts on the floor of the Riksdag, it does not go through. Perhaps not so much else does either right now. That is how it looks.

I still wonder, because I did not receive an answer to the question. We heard from the member in the rostrum that this is society's most important task. Why then has one not prioritized ensuring that there is a bill on the table that changes the legislation and leads to convictions? Today, we are not getting convictions. It is in very few cases that anyone is convicted.

Organized human trafficking is being conducted in Sweden without any legal consequences. It falls in court. Why have the Sverigedemokraterna, if this is one of society's most important tasks, not done more during their four years?

(Applause)

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

Sara Gille (SD)

Madam President! First and foremost, I want to emphasize that we do not want any human being to be exploited. In a modern society like Sweden, it should not occur at all. I think it is appalling that it happens.

Then I also want to say that I do not agree with the member. The Sweden Democrats, together with the government, are doing significantly more than the member's party ever did for these vulnerable people. I do not agree at all that the Sweden Democrats have not prioritized this. That is not true. Much more is happening now than when you held government power.

We commission inquiries. We submit proposals, but time and again you vote them down. You do not agree with us in the debates, and you do not agree with us when the Riksdag votes. I think it is absurd that you pressure us on this when we are actually doing things. The member's party should simply look at themselves in the mirror.

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

Helena Vilhelmsson (C)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Sara Gille, for the speech! It was very striking. I have great respect for the member's description of people's vulnerability – perhaps extra great for the description of women's vulnerability, whether it concerns men's violence against women or other forms of vulnerability. Then there is the question of whether the Center Party thinks the government's measures are sufficient, and I will return to that in my speech.

I have a specific question regarding honor-related violence and oppression. I did not hear it myself, but I believe that the Sweden Democrats have made a statement regarding a ban on wearing the veil. The Member of Parliament also mentioned it in their speech.

It may be that the veil is equal to oppression. It may also be about the opposite – that women wear the veil voluntarily. That being said, legislation is normative and can have an effect, even if women do things "voluntarily". Legislation can therefore be normative, but the question is how such legislation would function. I would very much like to hear the member reason a bit about how they have thought about this.

Who should monitor women who wear a veil and ask if it is actually done voluntarily or not? Should the police do it? Should the police commit their resources to that? The oppression does not just sit in the garment, but it sits, with all certainty, with a man who forces the woman to wear a veil.

What is the exact benefit of banning a garment instead of taking more measures to remove the real problem? The member may please explain a bit how they have thought about this and if there are further measures to combat honor-related violence and oppression. I do not think it is enough to ban the veil.

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

Sara Gille (SD)

Madam President! Thank you to the member for the question! I actually agree with the member that this is not enough. It is not enough to ban this garment, but it is a large part of the work.

We must not ignore or forget what this garment symbolizes. I know that there are very many, including my own relatives, who wear this garment voluntarily. I know that not everyone is forced to wear it. But the fact is that many are not allowed to choose for themselves. I do not think that one should forget that. Sverigedemokraterna want to stand on the side of those women and girls who do not have this free choice.

It is, as the member himself says, the man who is the problem. That is how it is. What is the reason that one even forces these girls and women to wear a veil? Yes, it is that one wants to subordinate them, keep men's gazes in check, and so on.

In an egalitarian country like Sweden, where we have come so far in the fight for equality, I think it is appalling and very tragic that we are actually moving backwards when we allow these garments more and more in society.

Our position is that we want a Sweden without these garments. That is how it is, and I think it is a self-evident thing. How we are to get there we do not know, but we have stated that our position is that we want to see a country without these garments. It is precisely in order to be able to help those who are vulnerable. But how we are to get there we do not know, rather it is there we want an investigation to see if it is even doable at all.

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

Helena Vilhelmsson (C)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Sara Gille, for the answer!

I think my question is highly relevant, and I do not think the Sweden Democrats can ring-fence how to do this in a good way. Sure, one can appoint an inquiry. But the member says himself that not everyone is forced to wear a veil. I do not think we should get stuck in cultural-relativistic theories. We shall fight the oppression, but the oppression does not sit solely in the veil.

I also believe that the Sweden Democrats said at some press conference that this will be used at the border. At the border, one must take off the veil, and if one does not do that, one can go somewhere else. Then the question inevitably arises whether this is really solely a way to protect oppressed women or if it is also a migration policy measure. The oppression continues even for those women who may be denied entry into Sweden because they wear a veil. This becomes a bit unrealistic. It becomes unsustainable. The somewhat insinuating question then becomes whether SD's struggle really concerns the woman or if it is a way to deport more people from Sweden.

I would like to see more discussion about what actually helps. The member says that there are women who wear a veil voluntarily. In that case, this subjects them to coercion.

We should instead talk about what the Center Party has in its reforms – how we are to counter honor-related violence and oppression in preschool, school, and leisure activities. Appoint a national plan for education! Ensure that we have a national register for missing children! Ensure that consular units help children who have been taken out of the country! Ensure that those who come home receive a sensible reception and are not locked up! These are proposals that help.

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

Sara Gille (SD)

Madam Speaker! Yes, one can do much more than just ban these garments, absolutely. I do not object to that, but there I share the member's view.

But I still think that this is highly relevant. These garments symbolize women's subordination, that the man is the head of the family and all that, so I still think that these are important issues. I am very happy that it has been brought up for debate at all, because I believe that it is important.

I also believe that the women who are forced to wear these garments appreciate that we are discussing this, because even though there are those who voluntarily put on these garments, there are those who do not do so voluntarily.

I stand by the fact that we Sweden Democrats want a country without these garments. If we get this through, which I truly hope, one can of course move to another country if one now promptly wants to wear these garments. That is how it is, and that is what I stand by. I do not think they belong here in Sweden at all, so I think that one can then move to another country that actually allows those garments.

When it comes to the investigation, we are commissioning it to see if things can be resolved, how they can be resolved, and so on. We have actually only communicated our position and what we think about this. But we have not come to how it should be solved, and that is where the investigation is to take over.

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

Sofia Amloh (S)

Madam Speaker! There are catastrophes that are visible. They fill our TV screens with images of destroyed buildings and people fleeing. They evoke our compassion because it is impossible to turn a blind eye to them.

There are also catastrophes occurring among us. They take place behind closed doors, in apartments, at construction sites, in forests, in hotel rooms, and on the internet's advertising pages. They are catastrophes that continue because most of us are never forced to see them. They are catastrophes we can choose to turn a blind eye to.

Human trafficking is such a catastrophe. It exists here in Sweden. It exists in our country at the same time as we gladly describe ourselves as one of the world's most equal and humane societies.

Madam President! I lived in Southeast Asia for a period, primarily in Cambodia. There, it was impossible to shield oneself. When darkness fell, the exploitation became visible. It was on the streets, in the restaurants, and in the bars. It became part of the cityscape, part of the tourism.

It is happening beneath the surface. It does not make the suffering any less. It only makes it easier for those around us to look away because the truth is uncomfortable. That which we rightly condemn in the history books is still ongoing, albeit in new forms. People pick our berries or sell their bodies. It is our time's slavery.

Madam President! "She really looked like she was in pain." That is not a testimony from a crime scene. It is one of 30,000 reviews on a site after a sex purchase. Let us pause at that. 30,000 reviews. Men reviewing women's bodies. Men describing their pain. Men who continue to consume.

The sites that enable this have hundreds of thousands of Swedish visitors every month. Exploitation has been digitized. What previously took place on the street now also takes place behind screens. Recruitment, advertising, payment, control – all can occur with a few button presses. But the technology is not the problem. The problem is that there are still people who believe they have the right to purchase access to other people's bodies. And as long as demand exists, organized crime will deliver the supply.

Madam President! Human trafficking is not just another crime in the statistics. It is one of the most heinous attacks on human dignity. Through lies, threats, and coercion, people are recruited to be exploited. People are reduced to commodities.

The UN describes human trafficking as the world's third largest criminal activity after drug trafficking and arms trafficking. It is not small-scale crime. It is international, organized, and extremely profitable crime. And the victims are almost always the most vulnerable: women and children, girls, people who already lack protection.

Madam Speaker! Today we are debating the government's strategy against men's violence against women, violence in close relationships, exploitation in prostitution and human trafficking, as well as honor-related violence and oppression.

It is good that the government presents a long-term strategy. It is good that the strategy acknowledges that men's violence against women stems from a power imbalance between the genders. It is good that Sweden still stands by its international commitments.

Mr. Speaker, Madam President, we Social Democrats see serious flaws in the strategy. It concerns the most fundamental: Women and children are not receiving the protection they are entitled to. At the same time, the duty officers report that the violence is becoming more severe, and the reports are increasing.

Zero kronor – that is how much was allocated in the supplementary budget to concrete protection measures for women and children who are subjected to violence. Zero kronor.

At the same time, there are billions for other expenditures, such as reduced fuel tax or electricity subsidies – but not for the woman who stands there with her child in her hand wondering where she will go tonight, not for the child who falls asleep with fear in their stomach, and not for the one who fears for their life.

How are women supposed to dare to leave the violence if society cannot promise them protection? What shall we say to them? That they have to wait? That it can be another time? That the municipality has to decide or that there is no room? This must never be our answer. It must never be an answer we can accept.

Madam President! Between 2022 and 2024, around 600 cases of human trafficking were reported in Sweden. Not a single one led to a conviction – not a single one. What signal does that send? Yes, that the risk of getting caught is incredibly small, that the profits are large, and that Sweden has become an attractive country for organized exploiters. It is completely unacceptable.

We know what the problems are. Investigations have pointed them out, the Gender Equality Authority has pointed them out, and international organizations and bodies have criticized Sweden. Still, initiatives are lacking to change the legislation so that more can be convicted. An action plan is not enough. Action is required, courage is required, and political will is required.

Madam President! We Social Democrats also consider that sexual exploitation of children is given far too little space, and we consider this to be a betrayal. Children should never have to bear the adult world's inability to protect them – never.

Finally, I want to say that there are those who want to see the gender equality sub-goals as separate political areas – as if economic equality were not connected to freedom from violence and as if power and resources did not affect people's ability to live free lives.

We Social Democrats, however, know better. We know that equality builds strength, we know that economic independence creates freedom, and we know that a society where people are left alone also becomes a society where violence takes hold. Combating men's violence against women is therefore not just about criminal policy. It is about the society we want to be: a society where human dignity is unconditional, where no body is for sale, where children's safety weighs heavier than budget priorities, where women do not have to choose between violence and homelessness, and where the state stands on the side of the vulnerable – not with words, but with action.

Madam President! A strategy can show the direction, but it cannot in itself save a single woman or protect a single child. It cannot stop a single human trafficker. It is our decisions that do it – our funding, our legislation, and our courage to act.

History will not ask us what formulations we wrote. It will ask us what we did when we knew. We know, and we see. Therefore, we also have a responsibility to act.

I vote in favor of reservation 1.

(Applause)

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

Merit Frost Lindberg (M)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, the member, for the speech! Several parts of it contained criticism of the current work. On one hand, one wants more increased penalties, but on the other hand, increased penalties are not the only thing.

I must remind the member that this government took office after eight years of Social Democratic government rule. It was eight years of sluggishness. One chose, as usual, not to go as far as the Moderaterna when it comes to protecting women and children. One did not want to broaden the legislation against honor-related violence to the extent that we proposed, and it took a full four years after the Riksdag's announcement before the Riksdag could vote to make honor crimes a separate criminal classification. One also did not choose to go as far regarding penalties for rape and sexual crimes as the Moderaterna proposed.

I wonder why, during your own time in government, you did not choose to proceed with all the proposals that the Moderaterna had at that time.

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

Sofia Amloh (S)

Madam President! Thank you, Member, for the questions!

We as Social Democrats think it is very important to have two thoughts in mind at the same time. We must do more when it comes to crime policy and toughening sentences, and in that regard, we did a number of things during our last government term concerning crimes against children and making honor-related violence a separate classification in the legislation. This also applies to the consent legislation and so on. I will not spend all my speaking time telling this to the member.

One also needs to ensure that other conditions are created for this to succeed. We developed precisely that ten-year strategy which has formed the basis for the strategy we are now debating. It was, therefore, under a Social Democratic-led government that it was put in place. I have just praised the government for having taken up the task of continuing this long-term work, which is extremely important.

What concerns me is that this government, instead of holding two thoughts in its head at the same time, ensures that it is precisely women who become less economically independent. Report after report shows exactly that. It is not only we Social Democrats who stand here and say this, but we see how it is regressing.

How are women to be able to leave a destructive relationship or divorce – for whatever reason one may wish – if one is completely economically dependent on a man and is not economically independent? How is one to be able to ensure that freedom?

Why can the Moderates and the government not hold more than one thought in their heads?

(Applause)

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

Merit Frost Lindberg (M)

Madam President! Yes, this government holds many thoughts in its head. We took over the highest inflation from the previous government, and inflation hits those who are economically vulnerable the hardest, so it has been our priority to combat it. Otherwise, our line is that women should become independent, and one does not become that through subsidies but by having a job to go to.

It is also in this way that the most vulnerable women, who live in cultures of honor, can have the opportunity to escape from that structure, namely by going to a workplace – by going to another context. This has been this government's absolute priority, and we see that our work has yielded results: child poverty is decreasing, and more people are now entering employment. This strengthens the women in particular.

This government has also combined legislation. We have tightened the legislation so that it is now a crime to purchase sexual acts remotely – this was also the member's point. Repeated serious sexual offenses can lead to life imprisonment, and repeat offenders shall be able to be kept locked up. We have just voted through the historic penal reform, which also concerns criminal networks, which have a direct connection to human trafficking.

I wonder how the member can stand here and talk about equality at the same time as the member's party has a close cooperation partner in Vänsterpartiet, where there are clear and widespread forces working against equality. These are Islamist movements with segregation, control, and subordination as the basis of society.

This completely undermines all the work we are doing. We are working on penalties and women's economic independence, but all that work is undermined by this. It concerns forces that the Social Democrats will likely be in government with if given the opportunity. How does that square with the work for gender equality? I wonder about that.

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

Sofia Amloh (S)

Madam Speaker! We Social Democrats consider economic equality to be fundamental. If women are not economically independent, it will be extremely difficult to achieve the development in the strategy we are debating today. Freedom from violence, oppression, and exploitation is based on women being precisely economically independent.

I know that the member was present when we had the women's parliament on June 3. At that time, Sweden's collective women's organizations reported exactly how hard the economic inequality has hit women. They reported how this government's policy has actually caused women's economic freedom to retreat. And just a few weeks ago, Swedbank presented a very clear picture of how economic equality is rolling back – with emphasis.

It is the member's, the Moderates', the collective government's and the government base's policy that causes economic equality to retreat. The member and the government need to take responsibility for that.

How is a woman who has zero kronor in her account and who has been subjected to several forms of psychological and economic violence supposed to leave when society withdraws? In addition to our economic equality policy, we Social Democrats have, among other things, created a relocation allowance to make it possible for women to leave. It is an answer that the member should consider.

(Applause)

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

Merit Frost Lindberg (M)

Madam Speaker! I move for the approval of the committee's proposal.

I have so many times walked home with my keys held tightly in my hand. It is sad to admit that even today I adapt my way home according to the time of day, and I am not alone in that. I am bitterly tired of that we women, girls and children cannot be allowed to live our lives in safety and freedom. It must come to an end.

The government's new national strategy marks something important. Women and children are now finally given a human value, and the rights of the crime victim – not the perpetrator – are now in focus. The one who subjects others to violence shall face consequences. It shall be punishable to harm women and children. Crime victims shall receive redress and a sense that their lives mean something. Not least, crime victims and society shall be protected from perpetrators.

It is the blows and kicks that kill, but often it is the post-violence that prevents women from leaving a destructive relationship. It can involve control over bank accounts and housing, and some perpetrators use the children as a means of power. When a woman has finally made the incredibly difficult – and also dangerous – decision to leave, society must step up.

In the national strategy, economic violence and post-violence are highlighted as central parts for the first time. Several agencies have been tasked to cooperate to identify, counter, and prevent this type of control. In January, the government also established the Council for Women's Peace, which brings together politicians, agencies, municipalities, regions, and civil society.

Several legislative tightenings have also been carried out. The rental law protection for those subjected to violence has been strengthened. The Children and Parents Code has been changed so that the child's protection carries more weight in matters of custody, residence, and visitation. Protected housing has become a separate measure in the Social Services Act, with the aim of strengthening the rights of those subjected to violence and children, as well as clarifying the municipalities' responsibilities. Contact prohibitions have been strengthened, and the use of ankle bracelets has been expanded.

From July 1, psychological violence is also criminalized, and this explicitly includes economic control and manipulation. Regarding honor-related violence and oppression, the government has introduced a new gender equality sub-goal. The penalties for honor crimes have been tightened, and the focus is placed on preventive work – not least in schools.

No legislation in the world, no new sub-targets, no agency mandates and no reforms will however be sufficient as long as the work for equality is undermined by undemocratic and anti-women forces.

Madam President! A war is being waged in Sweden – a war of values regarding the view of women and the equal value of all people. On one side stand the values that have built our country strong: democracy, equality, and the individual's self-evident right to shape their own life. On the other side stand forces that want to limit freedom, control women, and subordinate the individual to the collective.

Islamist movements are among the most consistent opponents of equality. Their vision of society is not based primarily on equality but on segregation, control, and subordination. Therefore, Islamism, antisemitism, or other extremist ideologies can never be relativized in an equality policy worthy of the name.

Once again, we have seen how Vänsterpartiet, that is, the Social Democrats' close partner party, has been forced to handle a number of cases of Hamas sympathies and antisemitism among its representatives. The representatives with such views have been found to be many and even exist here in the Riksdag. The party leader does not seem to think it is a major problem. Nor do the Socialdemokraterna or any other opposition party seem deterred by this, but they all stand silent.

It is serious and frightening that these dangerous forces are allowed to infiltrate the innermost core of our democracy and undermine the entire foundation of the work for equality. Equality is ultimately about values, and if we are serious about equality, we must defend the values that make freedom possible.

The Moderate-led government is pushing the work forward relentlessly, and we will not yield an inch in the value war that is ongoing. Which other parties stand uncompromisingly behind the fight for democracy, equality, and the equal value of people is, however, highly unclear today. I think it would be reasonable if the Swedish people received answers.

(Applause)

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

Maj Karlsson (V)

Madam Speaker! It would be a pity to thank for the speech, but I thank the member anyway.

We have shown strong concern regarding the permit requirement and the erosion of protection for women and children that is currently taking place in Sweden due to the government's actions. We have asked RUT, the Riksdag's investigation service, to look into what it is that causes the idea-driven activities to be ruled out to this extent. We can see that the idea-driven activities are ruled out due to formal requirements. It can, for example, be that one has the wrong premises or education. It can also be about the chairperson's competence. The private actors, in contrast, receive rejections due to financial mismanagement, serious deficiencies in previous activities, or insufficient staffing, or due to violence, threats, and abuse.

The problems that the reform was intended to address are, therefore, largely held by the private actors. The cause-driven women's shelters have long experience. It is they who have ensured that women and children receive the protection they are entitled to, but now they are being dismantled.

My question is: What does the member intend to do to ensure that this appalling development is stopped?

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

Merit Frost Lindberg (M)

Madam President! I thank Maj Karlsson for the question.

This is a very important issue. This reform was initiated under the previous government and implemented under the current government. The purpose of the reform was very important. One of the main reasons was to remove criminal actors, who actually had quite good opportunities to operate in this sphere. It was also about ensuring that there are accommodations that are equivalent in quality and level across the entire country, about strengthening the rights of persons exposed to violence, and about strengthening the children's perspective. This is, therefore, an important reform, and the intentions behind it are very good.

I also hear about the problems that exist, and they worry me. I agree with the member that it is not fully functioning today. Reforms and new legislation often need to be adjusted and refined. This concerns a very important reform regarding people's protection, and it is extremely important that we really follow through on this. We have tasked Statskontoret to review how the reform has turned out, and we are following this closely.

However, it is not just about the legislation being correct. I am actually not sure what it is that is failing. It is also about the legislation having to be implemented correctly and fully. Here, the municipalities have a responsibility, as it is they who – quite independently – handle the procurements. We have provided support and funds, and I would, to a large extent, like to bounce the implementation back to the municipalities. As I said, we are following this issue closely.

I asked a rather clear question about equality overall to the member, but I received no comment on it. I would have liked to receive one.

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

Maj Karlsson (V)

Madam President! We warned strongly against this legislation, because we could see that exactly this would happen with the mandate given to obtain permits. The activity that has quality and knowledge and that actually provides protection is the core of the protection for women and children. We knew that it would be struck down. We alerted about it from the start.

Now we see that we were right. Regarding what the member raised, we see that the deficiencies were not among the voluntary women's shelters. The major problems were not widespread there, but instead among the private actors. The problem is that the reform strikes out the protection that is qualitative; that is where the shoe pinches.

It is not that this has had any small impact, but rather it has had an enormous impact. I understand that one must look at what lies at the foundation of this, but the signals were there earlier and are also there now. Women and children are not getting the right protection. We cannot sit and wait, investigate and see. We cannot twist and turn this when the signals are so clear and when Vänsterpartiet could say it already from the start. This is about the lives and safety of children and women.

There are things that could be done here and now. For example, one could tweak the requirements that are placed on protected housing. Today, they are adapted to HVB activities, which have nothing to do with how women and children receive protection. Then, for example, one would not have been rejected because one has an alcohol policy stating that it is not permitted to drink at the protected housing. Then one would not have had to be specifically a social worker, but it would have been about having solid knowledge on these issues.

What will the members do to change this?

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

Merit Frost Lindberg (M)

Madam Speaker! I agree with the member as I have said that this is a very important issue. The women's shelters are incredibly important. They must function, and they must be spread across the entire country.

What I can find a bit dull and low is that Vänsterpartiet never misses an opportunity to strike against private actors. The problem does not lie in the fact that there are private actors. Several of them are very important and constitute an important part of this work. It is not the form of operation that is important here, but what is important is that there is access to protected housing for vulnerable women and children.

Again: This reform came about for good reasons. It is being monitored continuously and will be monitored further. However, a great responsibility lies with the municipalities, as it is they who manage the procurement and choose whom they enter into agreements with. This issue cannot be managed entirely from here; the reform must also be fully implemented. Only then will we be able to see how the reform has turned out and what adjustments must be made.

I can only confirm that this is a very important issue for the government. It is being followed closely, and we will not let any deficiencies remain. This will continue to be developed.

As I noted, all the effort we put into the work on equality doesn't actually play such a huge role. I believe we agree that we want good protection for women and children, but at the same time, the member stands here representing a party that completely undermines the work we do. Antisemitic links are widespread in Vänsterpartiet. We have just received further reporting, and the investigative reporter says that this would have been even more widespread if they hadn't conducted such a lenient investigation and instead looked at all those who participated in demonstrations.

I note that all the effort we expend will be in vain if we allow representatives for Vänsterpartiet to continue spreading their misogyny and undermining this work.

(Applause)

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

Helena Vilhelmsson (C)

Madam President! Thank you, Merit Frost Lindberg, for the speech!

Shifts in values were commented on with emphasis. It is somewhat interesting, because it came from a representative of a government that has just pushed through a law stating that 13-year-olds – excuse me, 14-year-olds it will be – can be imprisoned. They want to place children who have not committed any crime in detention. I say this in connection with shifts in values.

These things would have been completely irrelevant and impossible for the Moderaterna further back in time. I say this without denying that one needs to fight crime. This is because SD is in the government and is obviously the party that is in control.

But that was not actually what I was going to talk about, but I want to return to honor-related violence and oppression, which the member spoke much about and which I have also raised in previous exchanges. It is a major problem. The question is how we should best combat it. What gives the most effect?

Something that does not yield results and which involves an incredible double game by the government – regarding seeing the whole picture and having two thoughts in one's head at the same time – are the unreasonable deportations of teenagers that occur. Where is the logic in us being tough against those who practice honor-related violence and oppression in Sweden when we simultaneously deport youths who are sent to countries where they are thrown straight back into just honor-related violence and oppression?

We remember Vana, who was deported to Iraq. I will be married off, she said herself. We can mention several names that have appeared in the media. We know that honor-related violence and oppression is fundamental in countries like Iran, Iraq, and Syria – not to mention Afghanistan, which the government is suddenly coddling.

Where is the logic in this?

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

Merit Frost Lindberg (M)

Madam President! I thank the member for the questions. They concerned areas that perhaps do not really belong here. But I can agree that they are still somewhat related.

No, the Moderaterna would have pushed through this regarding the detention of 13- and 14-year-olds a long time ago. But with the development that has occurred, we have had to do something. It is obviously not about imprisoning youths but about taking other measures. It is also about protecting them from the criminal actors. We all know that these actors have been able to recruit youths freely inside the facilities that have existed. The youths shall receive an organized return to society and organized rehabilitation. It is therefore primarily about caring for these youths and protecting them.

The deportations of teenagers are a result partly of legislation from 2016, and partly of the government removing this with lenient reasons, something that was abused to a very large extent and which also did not cover as many of the teenagers who have now been deported. What the government has done now is to restore at least a part of this, so that such deportations cannot occur again. No one in this government has wanted to deport teenagers in the way that has occurred.

I would like to ask a question to the member. I may not think that the Center Party's equality policy is overall impressive, but I have respect for the member's own work and strong voice in these issues. I know that there is a great commitment. But I do not understand how that is consistent with cooperation with the Left and the unpleasant, anti-women forces that exist as a basis in that party. I do not understand why the member does not use their strong voice to counteract this.

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

Helena Vilhelmsson (C)

Madam President! 13-year-olds are not protected by being in prison. That is what all experts and referral bodies believe. It is only the government that believes it, and they may continue to believe that. The same applies to 14-year-olds – unfortunately, the proposal returns in a modified form.

What the government is doing is letting the deportations continue. Despite what the government says, the unreasonable deportations continue. Youth who are subjected to honor-related violence and oppression in Sweden are being returned to countries where it occurs. I have not received any answer as to why there is no holistic view of this in the government.

I thank the member for appreciating my commitment to issues of equality. I am pleased to hear that.

I would like to ask one more question concerning the deportations. The government has set the median wage at nearly 35,000 kronor, and if one does not earn that much, one is not allowed to stay in Sweden. How does the government think this affects women and their wages? We know that women's wages are much lower than men's and that wages are generally much lower in the countryside in Sweden than in Stockholm. This has the effect that the government deports more women than men. How can that be? Is it something that has even been reflected upon?

In conclusion, I can inform the members that the Center Party has not planned to sit in government with the Left Party. The Moderates, however, plan to sit in government with the Sweden Democrats, despite the shifts in values that the party has contributed to in Sweden's Riksdag and in Sweden's development. It is remarkable.

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

Merit Frost Lindberg (M)

Madam Speaker! The answer is yes. I absolutely believe that we protect these teenagers with these measures. It surprises me if the member is satisfied with how it has functioned so far.

When it comes to women and median wages, it is the case that we have a number of exceptions for several occupations dominated by women. I am actually not at all sure that this will result in it being specifically women who are affected.

There is always something that can be improved. This issue regarding the deportation of teenagers has been a matter where we have really wanted to resolve the problems. The results we have seen have never been those that the vast majority of Moderates have desired. I still believe that we have done what we could to make it better. It is not our wish that teenagers who behave themselves should be deported. I want to be very clear about that. I am very deeply affected by it. As mentioned, I myself have a background as a second-generation immigrant. My father would have been one of those who were deported. This is, therefore, an issue that has touched me strongly personally.

I do not think the member's answer is sufficient regarding the extremist forces operating in our country. They operate to a large extent in a party that exists here in the Riksdag. The Center Party says that they do not want to form a government with that party, but the constellation that is being talked about is not real. There is no possibility for a center alternative. If there is a change of government, the Left Party will demand to be in government – it is obvious to all of us. That is the reality. The work that we do has very little value as long as we let these unpleasant, for me very frightening forces continue to spread.

I have not heard a single voice from the Center Party opposing this. Nothing is heard – not a single outraged voice. I find it difficult to understand, given the commitment I see in other issues from the member.

(Applause)

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

Maj Karlsson (V)

Madam President! Violence against women by men is not a series of individual incidents. It is a structural societal problem and the ultimate consequence of an unequal society. Behind the violence are women forced to live in fear, children growing up with violence in the home, and women who are killed by men they know or have known. It is a raw reminder that equality still has a long way to go.

The government is now presenting a new national strategy against men's violence against women. It is good that the issue is being highlighted. It is good that the government acknowledges that violence is still one of our greatest societal problems. But the strategy is only worth something if it is followed by policies that actually strengthen the protection for women and for children.

Madam Speaker! In the communication, the government states that access to protection, support, and care for women and children exposed to violence is uneven across the country. At the same time, we see how the non-profit protected housing is being closed and how women's shelters are forced to fight for their survival. Since the permit requirement was introduced, the number of protected housing units has decreased significantly. The non-profit women's shelters, which over decades have built up knowledge, experience, and trust, have been hit hardest.

The reform was intended to target unserious actors and welfare crime. And yes, in parts of the private sector, one has found exactly that: trickery and deceit. But for the non-profit women's shelters, one finds nothing of the sort; there, the consequences have been something completely different.

Organizations with long experience of supporting women and children exposed to violence have had to close or live with great uncertainty. It has not been due to deficiencies in quality, but because the requirements have not been adapted to the needs of women and children. Instead, the requirements are set based on an HVB logic and requirements adapted to allow men's violence against women to be part of a market. It is unacceptable.

Madam Speaker! A room is never just a room. For the woman fleeing violence, it is the difference between life-threatening danger and safety. For the child leaving a home marked by fear, it can be the beginning of a new life. Today's voluntary women's shelters know exactly what that means in practice. A protected room is not just four walls and a roof. It is an opportunity to regain control over one's life. Therefore, we can never accept that the operations of the women's shelters are dismantled.

The government is happy to talk about its efforts for women, but women do not need more explanations. Women need a policy that works. It is a policy that ensures there are protected shelters when violence strikes, and that strengthens the women's movement instead of weakening it.

Women and children need a political leadership that tackles the causes of violence and always guarantees that women and children quickly and easily receive protection when they need it.

Recently, the EU decided on reinforced requirements for support for women and children who are subjected to violence. Protected housing was highlighted as a central measure that the member states must ensure.

Of course, Sweden should lead the way in that work and not risk going in the opposite direction. It is absolutely central that the government dares to see that this reform did not turn out well and has the courage to stand up to truly ensure that children and women receive the protection and support they are entitled to.

When the alarms sound as loudly as they do now, we cannot sit on our hands and wait. The Social Affairs Committee voted down our initiative to freeze the licensing requirement to reduce the damage while we redo and do it right. Now the government parties owe an answer. What will you do to ensure that women and children receive the right protection in time?

Madam President! The report also states that the work to change destructive norms surrounding masculinity has not gained sufficient traction. If we are serious about preventing violence, we must dare to speak about the norms and power structures that make violence possible and that permeate our entire system.

Preventive work and strong work on equality are crucial to reducing violence in the long run. In that case, the policy must act with force.

We in Vänsterpartiet are feminists because we believe in the simple but still radical idea that women should have the same freedom, the same power, and the same opportunities as men. This applies to the labor market, it applies to economic independence, and it applies in family life. It applies to the most fundamental freedom of all, the right to live a life free from violence.

Women's peace requires more than solemn goals. It requires a strong women's movement, accessible sheltered housing, and a society that takes its responsibility fully. When any of these parts are weakened, the protection for women and children also becomes weaker. A society is not measured by its ambitions but by its ability to protect people when they are most vulnerable.

Women fleeing violence must be able to trust that society is there. The experience and knowledge of the women's shelter movement need to be taken into account, not pushed aside. Protection and support for women and children exposed to violence must be regarded as a right, never as a commodity on a market.

For every women's shelter that is forced to scale back its operations, knowledge, experience, and safety are lost. For every protected residence that disappears, the path out of violence becomes longer and more dangerous. This is truly a matter of life and death.

That responsibility can never be delegated to a market. It is and shall remain the responsibility of politics, and we need to take that with the utmost seriousness. I move for approval of reservation 4.

(Applause)

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

Camilla Rinaldo Miller (KD)

Madam Speaker! Today we are debating the Committee on Employment's report AU13 on the national strategy Freedom from violence, oppression, and exploitation. The strategy covers men's violence against women, domestic violence, prostitution and human trafficking, as well as honor-related violence and oppression. I want to start by moving to approve the committee's proposal in the report, so that I do not forget it.

A person living under any of these conditions is one too many. It can be both women and men, but what we know for certain is that women are the most vulnerable. Statistics show this clearly, even though there is certainly a large dark figure for people who are subjected to violence, oppression, or in some way are exploited.

Who are the ones who are being subjected to it, and how do we discover it? It could be a mother trying to protect her children while she herself lives under threat. It could be a woman who leaves home for her work but feels anxiety about what will meet her when she returns home again. It could be a young girl who is restricted by honor norms and who is not allowed to shape her own life. It could be a person who is exploited in prostitution or human trafficking or who is exploited economically and lives under oppression.

All these examples are simply one too many. It is their reality that we must keep in mind when we make our decisions.

Madam President! For the Christian Democrats, every person's inviolable and unique value is the starting point for politics. No person should have to live in fear in their own home. No one should have to adapt their life to threats, control, or violence. No one should be deprived of their freedom or their dignity.

Therefore, we welcome the new national strategy that the government has presented for the period 2026–2035. The strategy implies a long-term, collective, and sustained effort to combat violence, oppression, and exploitation. The government has also taken important initiatives to strengthen cooperation between agencies and improve the follow-up of the work.

Madam President! The Christian Democrats have for a long time pushed for stronger protection for women and children exposed to violence. We know that violence in close relationships rarely begins with a blow. It often begins with control, isolation, psychological breakdown, and successive violations.

Therefore, society must become better at detecting the signals in time. Society is politics, school, work, leisure activities, friends and family. It is you and I. To choose not to look away is to act.

We need a social service that has the resources to act early. We need a health and medical care system that functions and dares to ask about exposure to violence. We need schools that see the children and catch those who live with violence in the home. We need a justice system that consistently stands on the victim's side. But it also requires ordinary people who are observant and dare to react.

Madam Speaker! For the Christian Democrats, the family is the most important community in society. But precisely because of that, we must also be clear: When the home becomes a place of violence and fear, society has a responsibility to intervene. To safeguard the family never means turning a blind eye to abuse, on the contrary. It means protecting those who are subjected to it and putting the children's safety first. Children who grow up with violence are also crime victims. They often carry the consequences with them well into adulthood.

The children's perspective must therefore permeate the entire work against violence in close relationships. Children who witness violence need protection, support, and treatment. They must not fall through the cracks because different authorities do not cooperate.

The Christian Democrats want to continue to strengthen the support for children who are subjected to or witness violence. We also want to ensure that protected housing maintains high quality and is available when the need arises. No woman should be met with the message that there is no space. No mother should have to choose between homelessness and continued vulnerability.

Madam Speaker! We Christian Democrats also view positively that the government is now strengthening the work against honor-related violence and oppression through the new action plan for the period 2026–2028. Honor oppression is a serious attack on fundamental freedoms and rights. It affects primarily girls and women, but also boys and young men. The work needs to be long-term and coordinated and have a special focus on the vulnerability of children and young people.

In Sweden, every person shall have the right to choose education, friends, partners and future. No one shall be restricted by collectively imposed norms or be subjected to control, threats or violence in the name of honor.

The work against prostitution and human trafficking must also continue with full force. The Christian Democrats stand firm on the Swedish view that a human being must never be turned into a commodity. The one who is exploited shall be met with support and help to leave their vulnerability. The one who exploits other people shall be met with the full force of society.

Madam Speaker! There are so many parts concerning this area and so much important work that needs to be done. But ultimately, it is still the case that this debate is fundamentally not just about legislation, agency mandates or strategy documents. It is primarily about what kind of society we want. It is a society characterized by humanity that does not look away when someone is harmed. It is a society characterized by responsibility, that does not leave the vulnerable alone. It is a society that is built on human dignity and that never accepts violence as a private matter.

When a woman dares to speak out, she should be met with support. When a child signals that something is wrong, someone must listen. When a person seeks protection, society must be there. That is how we build a safer and more humane Sweden.

With that starting point, the Christian Democrats welcome the government's new national strategy and the continued development of the work to combat violence, oppression, and exploitation.

With these words, Madam Speaker, I would like to take the opportunity to thank all members of the Committee on Employment for the debates we have had together during this parliamentary term. We do not always think alike, but that is fortunate, as it only makes the debates a little more interesting!

I would like to wish the Speaker of the House, the secretariat staff and other staff, as well as all members, a very nice summer.

(Applause)

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

Maj Karlsson (V)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member, for the speech!

The members of the committee raised, which is very good, the children's perspective in this. It is central. I have previously spoken about the permit requirement and about the law that came where they wanted to strengthen the protection for children so that they would get their own decision from the social services. That part is important. Children shall have security; there is no question about that matter.

Now, however, the women's shelters across the country are sounding the alarm that extremely few children are receiving placement. It is a development that has been ongoing over time, but one still sees that there are alarming signals. We have asked the Riksdag's investigation service to look a bit closer at this, and it emerged, among other things, that there is a development where the social services choose other types of housing for these children than the protected residences. That means, by definition, worse quality and less long-term perspective.

I know that Member Rinaldo Miller usually takes these questions very seriously. She does not usually blame municipalities and so on in her answers. But I still just want to say that one can think that this is a way for the social services to handle a major problem. The social services realize that these children need protection quickly and that it must not become too complicated, and therefore simply choose another solution.

I think that this was not the purpose of the legislation, so I want to ask the members: What do you intend to do to ensure that children do not receive insecure placements in short-term housing or, in the worst case, no placements at all, but instead get to a protected home with long-term, qualitative care?

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

Camilla Rinaldo Miller (KD)

Madam President! Thank you, Maj Karlsson, for giving me this question! I really mean it.

As I said in my speech, the family is, according to the Christian Democrats, the most important cornerstone for the entire society to function. If the family does not function, neither does society. If children suffer and are exposed to harm, it becomes even heavier to bear.

It is incredibly important that the women's shelters function. I have personally visited a non-profit women's shelter in Jönköping. It was before the new rules came into force, and at the women's shelter, they were worried. I visited them again after the rules had come into force, and then they thought it was working well. They see the positive in that changes have been made that take the children's perspective first – that one wants to protect the children better.

Kvinnojouren has good cooperation with the municipality, and there is an IOP. You have made this work. I wish that other municipalities would look at how work is done in Jönköping to see that it can actually work with the idea-driven, the voluntary, kvinnojourer, because I believe that alternatives are needed.

I have a counter-question for Maj Karlsson. We have experiences of women's shelters that have not functioned, where women and children, instead of being protected, have been exposed. Was it not good that we did something about that? Does Member Maj Karlsson not think that something needed to be done to rectify the places that one goes to to be protected and instead becomes even more exposed?

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

Maj Karlsson (V)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, the member, for the answer and for the continued questions!

I think this is an interesting question, because this is the running point. Flaws have been found in the private sector; one does not find the flaws in the non-profit sector. There, completely different things play a role, that is to say, one has set requirements that are not at all adapted to the needs of women and children.

The voluntary volunteer movement has been the hub of the work to protect women and children for generations. It is there that we can ensure that women and children receive the protection they need.

We are in complete agreement that children should have protection. It should be safe and secure. But this legislation has led to higher thresholds and narrower corridors. It is much harder to get help, and that is not the development we want.

Since I feel that the member has a genuine interest in this, I also want a real discussion. The problem is that we are about to knock out the activity that is the hub, in favor of doing exactly what the member himself raised in his speech. We do not want a market with women. This is a market with women and children who are victims of violence. It is not okay.

We have operations that function very well to provide protection and support and to drive issues forward. These operations are being targeted for elimination by the government, and it is life-threatening in the true sense of the word. That is why I mean that we must take steps that ensure the security of the operations.

The private sector absolutely needs to be scrutinized. In my opinion, it has no business being involved in this activity at all. But we must have a protection that ensures the voluntary women's shelters remain; that is the core of the work. We must ensure that doors are opened so that there are no huge hurdles, making it super difficult and very bureaucratic for children to receive protection. It is completely central.

(Applause)

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

Camilla Rinaldo Miller (KD)

Madam Speaker! We are in complete agreement. Children and women, above all, who need help shall receive help. They shall receive help in time, and it shall not be too complicated.

To say that it is only private activities that have not functioned is not correct. I believe that alternatives are needed, but we must have control. We need to have control over all activities: municipal, non-profit, and private activity. We must have control tools for everything. Otherwise, we risk sending women straight into a new vulnerable situation, and none of us want that.

I cannot say that it has become bad for everyone just because we have changed this. It hasn't, but it takes time to transition. Every time something is changed, there are those who think it is very good and who welcome it. In Jönköping, they were worried before the change but now experience that they have a functioning operation with the new regulations and that they have a good and functioning relationship with the municipality and the region. We need to ensure that other municipalities also have that.

I do not think it helps that we change. I think it is good with a licensing requirement, because we can get rid of unserious actors but at the same time protect the children and women who need help. I think that this is good. At every change, one needs to see if it is something that has not worked and in that case change it. But we need to get to the bottom of and get control over this and ensure that vulnerable children and young people get the protection they need.

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

Helena Vilhelmsson (C)

Mr. Speaker! I thank the member for the speech.

I would just like to once again raise the question that I took up in my previous exchanges, namely the question of honor-related violence and oppression. I think it is a complex issue that deserves an open and honest debate about how we will approach this, because it is very difficult.

I have in previous exchanges problematized the wearing of the veil because the oppression does not lie in the garment itself, but with those who force women to wear certain garments. I know that the leader of the Christian Democrats has also expressed something along the lines of banning the veil. I would therefore like to know how the member views it, how the reasoning has gone regarding it, and what the actual gains are.

In his speech, the member mentioned honor-related violence and oppression in terms of that it is good that an action plan has been produced, I believe. It does not say much in the national strategy on honor-related violence and oppression, but an action plan only becomes good if one does things. In addition to how the member views a ban on the veil, I would therefore like to know what the Kristdemokraternas most important proposals are to prevent and combat honor-related violence and oppression.

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

Camilla Rinaldo Miller (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Helena Vilhelmsson for the question.

When it comes to the niqab and burqa, the Christian Democrats have been very clear. We have a parliamentary decision that we want to ban clothing that hides the face. It has to do with safety and security. When you meet a person, you should be able to see who it is. The niqab and burqa are truly an expression of real oppression. We have not at all said that there should be a ban on the veil.

There have been many speeches here today, and many are about what oppression is. Women can be subjected to oppression in purely economic terms. A man who controls what she buys and what the money is spent on can be an oppression. An oppression can be that she is not allowed to associate with whom she wants. It can be that a man controls which friends she has.

When we talk about oppression, it is not only about honor-based oppression. There are women who are born in Sweden, and whose ancestors have lived and resided in Sweden for generations, who live under oppression. Here it is, just as I touched upon in my speech, about not looking away. It is about daring to see when someone is subjected to violence or oppression or is subjected in other ways, perhaps economically.

For me, this is perhaps the best action plan. We can write action plans of 100 pages or 2,000 pages, but the most important thing is how you and I act as fellow human beings when we see people living under oppression.

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

Helena Vilhelmsson (C)

Mr. Speaker! I think it was nice to hear that the Christian Democrats really have several perspectives on potential bans on items of clothing. I believe it will be very difficult given the constitution, but now I understand the starting point better from the KD perspective. I see that it does not, as I fear it would become with the Sweden Democrats' perspective, become a migration policy measure rather than a measure to protect women.

I also think it is good that there are now a sixth and a seventh sub-objective. I belong to those who think it is good that it is specified, because it is a particular type of oppression. I want to make that clear.

I also think we must be good at talking about what solutions we have for the problem. We must exchange these with one another so that we get down to business. I do not think that either the national strategy or the action plan is sufficiently clear with concrete proposals. I intend, therefore, to come forward with some proposals that the members can take with them to the government's work, regardless of which government it becomes after the election.

I think it is crucial that it is written into the preschool curriculum. There are currently no writings there about honor-related violence and oppression.

We need an increase in competence throughout society, both regarding staff within the school system and regarding staff within the justice system. How does one identify honor-related violence and oppression?

We need to have action plans in the schools on how to act if one discovers it. We need to have a national absence register, which I believe still does not exist.

We need strengthened support at the border. Centerpartiet is for all proposals that enable border police and border personnel to stop suspected illegal departures.

We need to have a supervision plan for Ivo. We have decided on stronger protection against violations of innocence and so on, but we have not tasked Ivo with exercising any specific supervision. What is the point of the new legislation then? There is infinitely more to be done.

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

Camilla Rinaldo Miller (KD)

Mr. Speaker! The member has now come forward with very many good proposals. The member is welcome to send them to me, as I did not have time to write them all down.

I want to return to what I said before. We can write as many action plans as we want, but fundamentally it is about how I and the members respond to our fellow human beings. If we do not dare to talk to young men and boys about what oppression is, it does not help with a ban on the veil.

It begins with how we see and treat each other. We will never get this right if we do not start when the children, both girls and boys, are small, or if I am not bold enough to dare to speak up when I see that something is not okay or right.

I do not believe that bans are the best way to go. I believe more in dialogue, in daring to take the conflict that arises and daring to be uncomfortable and saying: What you are being subjected to is not okay. This is not how it works in our country.

I believe in really talking about our values, about how we should treat one another and what it means to be a fellow human being in Sweden. It is about living together and having respect for one another – both men and women. I believe that is the best action plan we can ever get. Then we can continue to write action plans, which are good to have as a basis, but in the long run, it is about how I and the members meet our fellow human beings.

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

Helena Vilhelmsson (C)

Mr. Speaker! Yes, friends, it is time for the final equality debate of the parliamentary term. I intended to make an attempt at a summary, because results are extra important now when we are experiencing a backlash unlike any other regarding equality in the world and in Sweden. We must remember that for four years we have had a government that has had a very high tone when it comes to precisely equality.

Has violence against women decreased? No. The development of economic equality is moving backwards. Wage gaps are increasing. Fathers' use of parental leave is decreasing or remains stagnant. What about women's entrepreneurship? Sweden is at the bottom of the league in Europe, so to speak. Do we have more convictions for sexual violence? No. More girls than ever before are exposed to unwanted sexual behavior. Is honor-related violence decreasing? No. Does the government prioritize equality in its systematic work? No. They are removing writings on equality integration.

Mr. Speaker! We have often heard that the government, now at the end, has made the largest investment in equality ever in this year's budget. The truth, however, is that during the mandate period, the government has not only failed to move equality policy forward but has actually also actively dismantled it. We see a silent dismantling of the equality work.

I will try to package this criticism a bit before I move on to the report itself.

First, we have this with removed requirements in the regulatory letters, i.e., that the steering is being removed. The Centre Party has sharply criticized that the government has deleted the requirements for gender equality integration in the regulatory letters for over 40 agencies. We see this as a clear signal that gender equality is no longer a self-evident and prioritized part of the agencies' core missions. A decision in the Government Offices does not replace all agencies' measurable goals as a guarantee for a focus on gender equality.

We see hollowed-out consequence analyses. Last week, the committee system was debated here in the chamber on behalf of KU. The Center Party argues that gender equality analyses in government investigations have become a paper product. Even when an investigation shows that a proposal will have negative consequences for gender equality, the government often chooses to proceed anyway without presenting countermeasures. That means that accountability disappears.

We also see, as said, insufficient measures for economic equality. The government's policy does not address the structural economic differences between women and men. In some cases, it exacerbates them.

We lack a coherent strategy to reduce the gap in lifetime income, which is largely due to unequal uptake of parental leave.

We also see a lack of support for women's entrepreneurship. The government is not taking sufficient measures to improve the conditions for women's entrepreneurship, especially when it comes to access to venture capital. Even for women's entrepreneurship, the parental leave is extremely important.

What I find most serious, however, is that there is a lack of ambition in the fight against men's violence against women. In that regard, there has been no progress, despite the national strategy. We do not have a shelter program in place, for example.

Despite beautiful words in documents and some tasks remaining, the fact is: The most dangerous period is when the woman has decided to leave the relationship. That is when she is murdered. Still, there is neither a program or financial support, despite it being mentioned in strategies and documents. There is, however, support for men who leave criminal environments. There, a structured exit support exists.

It is also about insecure conditions for civil society. The funding for women's and girls' shelters is still short-term and project-based. We need to have a national model that guarantees long-term and stable basic funding.

The idea behind the reform of the permit requirement for protected housing was good, but how has it gone? We have the facts on the table. The National Agency for Evaluation (Statskontoret) came in its partial report a few weeks ago with scathing criticism. I will summarize some of their conclusions.

Fewer adults and children are seeking and being offered intervention with protected housing, despite no indication that the violence has decreased. The National Agency for Public Management sees tendencies that protected housing is being used more as a last resort, which is the exact opposite of the intentions behind protected housing within social services.

The National Audit Office notes that an unnecessarily large number of protected residences are being closed, partly due to the legal situation regarding, for example, alcohol bans in protected residences as well as other unclear requirements. It could be about too few toilets, even though the number of toilets has never been a problem in protected residences. But now it apparently is, just because Ivo is reviewing it.

Overall, the number of protected residences has almost halved, according to Statskontoret. For the first time, there are also more men than women living in protected residences, while the number of places has decreased. This is not due to women being less threatened.

Statistics Sweden assesses overall that there is a risk that not all adults and children who need to reach sheltered housing will be able to do so, which can have catastrophic consequences for both the individual and society.

The conclusion must be a requirement for re-examination. As mentioned, it was raised in the Social Affairs Committee, but the government parties did not vote for it.

We need to freeze the permit requirement. It is a highly reasonable and urgent measure. Permits should not depend on the number of toilets or an alcohol ban. The fact that it becomes more expensive for the residences due to the permit requirement must also not come at the expense of women and children. However, that is what we see today, because the social services cannot afford to place women and children there. But one must buy places. One has a responsibility for those affected by crime, and that is also a legal requirement.

Still, the government has the nerve to defend this reform to the bitter end. It is not reasonable.

Let me then move on to the report and the government's ten-year strategy. It is good, no more and no less. It could have been clearer from the start and provided more direction, even though action plans will follow. Words, however well-formulated they may be, do not stop blows and do not break isolation. They provide no hope for the future to the one who is forced to flee their own home. For this, action, concrete measures, and resources are required.

In combination with my empirical assessment of Tidö's gender equality policy, both the strategy and the committee's handling of it are quite deficient.

One of the most effective ways to control and break down another person is through economic violence. Being denied the right to control one's own finances, not having one's own bank account, being forced to account for every receipt, and seeing common assets disappear is a reality for far too many, primarily women, in Sweden today.

Economic violence is an invisible cage that makes it extremely difficult to leave a destructive relationship. This aspect of violence is treated very parentally in the government's strategy. We must give social services, the police, and the justice system better tools to identify and act against this oppression. We must strengthen the support offered to the victims.

For this, a uniform definition of what economic violence is is needed. Even that does not exist yet.

The worst thing is that the authorities are contributing to economic violence. This is also mentioned very timidly in the strategy, despite the fact that the National Audit Office recently submitted a report that also contained scathing criticism of the government. I know it is in the works, but there is not enough focus on it.

I see that my speaking time is running out.

Centerpartiet has, in its supplementary motion, urged that the gender perspective should be clarified more clearly in the strategy. We do not consider that this has been addressed. It is also not sufficient to state a seventh sub-objective as a response to the proposal to clarify the perspective on honor-related violence and oppression in the strategy, which was also included in our supplementary motion. Therefore, I move for approval of reservation 5.

(Applause)

In this speech, Ulrika Heie (C) agreed.

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

Merit Frost Lindberg (M)

Mr. Speaker! No legislation in the world, no new sub-targets, agency mandates or reforms, will be enough for us to achieve equality in Sweden as long as all the work we do continues to be undermined by undemocratic and anti-woman forces.

A war of values is ongoing in Sweden, and I firmly mean that the Center Party has taken a side in this war by advocating for the Social Democrats' Magdalena Andersson as Prime Minister together with the Left Party, which we know will become part of that government. So, one allies oneself with a left-extremist policy.

In some way, the Centre Party constantly manages to wiggle out of the fact that one has actually taken this position, that one has taken a stand and chosen a side. We all know that there is no middle. The position that the Centre Party pretends to have does not exist.

There are two sides to the war, and it is incomprehensible to me how the Center Party and the member can speak about equality, not least in terms of the honor-related areas, and at the same time support a government together with the Left Party. I would very much like to have an answer from the member because I did not get one. How does that go together with the foundation of the equality work?

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

Helena Vilhelmsson (C)

Mr. Speaker! Let us take the question again. This is the Moderaternas only question. I could think that this is avoiding the core issue. What we are discussing today is the government's gender equality policy. The Moderaterna are making it a choice, which shall be decided after the election that actually takes place in September.

I have previously said from the rostrum that it is somewhat interesting that the Moderaterna are standing here and talking about shifts in values and serious gender equality policy consequences when one has oneself voted through a reporting law that has consequences for children and women. One has tried to vote through a proposal to put 13-year-olds in prison and children in detention. One contributes to deportations that have consequences for young people. The government is working on toughening the penalty for those who subject young people in Sweden to honor-related violence and oppression, while simultaneously gladly sending these young people back to countries where the same oppression prevails. This is something that the Moderaterna think is completely okay.

The Moderates even think that the party that has championed these issues, namely the Sweden Democrats, should sit in the government after the next election. The Centre Party does not think that. We also do not think that the Left Party should sit in the government.

I do not understand why the tone is so high from Merit Frost Lindberg when one is sitting in the boat one is in.

I say again: We do not intend to sit in government with Vänsterpartiet. Do the Moderaterna intend to sit in a government with Sverigedemokraterna?

(Applause)

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

Merit Frost Lindberg (M)

Mr. Speaker! The tone is high because it is a frightening situation.

Perhaps the Centre Party will not join a government, but one will undeniably support a government. Which government it will be has now been clarified.

Many people have been removed from Vänsterpartiet earlier due to highly questionable and frightening values. There have been 24 people in this round. A few more are in the Riksdag.

The reporter who examined the issue also communicated that if she had examined more broadly and highlighted all the elected officials with Hamas links who have demonstrated or shared posts on social media, it would have been significantly more than the 24 people. This is a widespread, frightening problem in a party that is present in the Riksdag.

For me, this is completely incomprehensible. That the Center Party can stand here with its honor intact and talk about equality while simultaneously having taken a stand for a government side with this as a basis is hypocrisy to me. I will never understand how the member, who has a high sense of responsibility and a great commitment to the issues, can defend the Center Party's position.

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

Helena Vilhelmsson (C)

Mr. Speaker! A statement does not become true the more often one says it.

I implore the member to listen to my answer. It is true. The Center Party's support does not come for free. The Center Party will hold the banner high in any government negotiation. We will not sell our souls, which all the alliance parties in this government have done compared to how the policy looked when it was conducted in the Alliance. It was then when values were important and equality was important.

Once, the Moderaterna had a policy and a party leader who stood for those values. That is not the case today. It doesn't matter if we were to knock on the door and say that we want to negotiate. Ulf Kristersson has been clear: He does not want us. That is why we presented our statement a couple of weeks ago. It still does not mean that Vänsterpartiet will sit in a government where Centerpartiet is included. It does not mean that we, in a government negotiation, will sell our souls.

We have seen what happens when former bourgeois parties do that, and we do not intend to repeat it.

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

Helene Odenjung (L)

Mr. Speaker! I would like to begin by moving for the approval of the committee's proposal in report AU13, and I shall try to stick to the report during the debate.

Freedom from violence, oppression, and exploitation is the name of the national strategy that we are debating today. Freedom is the core of liberalism, not as an abstract ideal but as something deeply concrete in people's everyday lives: Freedom to choose one's life. Freedom to decide over one's body. Freedom to leave a relationship, a family, a context without fear.

But for those living under threat, violence and oppression, freedom is not a given. It is limited and sometimes completely deprived. That is why this report is so important.

We actually see that some improvements have been made over time, but we also know that on average 13 women are killed every year by a man they have or have had a relationship with. It is a decrease from 20 per year at the beginning of the 00s, but every murder is a failure and a major societal problem.

We know that violence in close relationships is still widespread. We know that honor-based oppression limits people's life choices. We know that support is not equal across the country, and we know that far too many crimes go unsolved. This is not just an equality issue, but it is a freedom issue and a major problem for the rule of law.

For me as a social liberal, it all begins with the individual. This means an uncompromising defense of every person's autonomy, every person's rights, and every person's opportunity to live their life without coercion. It also means a clear conclusion. When freedom is threatened, the state must be strong, not strong for its own sake, but strong for the one who is vulnerable.

Mr. Speaker! I would like to take the liberty of reminding [the House] of many of the reforms that are today self-evident and which have been driven by a clear liberal commitment, often against the wind with great opposition, but which have since been embraced by most as expressions of liberal democracy: universal primary education, women's suffrage, the law against child abuse, paternity months in the parental insurance, and the rights of hbtqi persons. These are just some of them.

The Liberals have always been involved and pushed forward, and we have done so now as well: tightened legislation against violence in close relationships, strengthened protection for crime victims, not least through the roles of women's shelters, the consent law, which shifted the focus to the individual's right to say yes or no, harsher penalties for honor-related crimes, child marriage crimes and a specific basis for increased penalties for honor motives, as well as strengthened protection for children who witness violence. The list can be made even longer, and we have been clear on an issue where others have sometimes hesitated. Honor oppression is not an expression of culture, it is an expression of oppression. And it shall be fought with the full force of the rule of law.

Mr. Speaker! From a social-liberal perspective, I want to be clear that we do not accept that girls or, for that matter, boys are restricted in their life choices, that women are controlled by family or relatives, or that violence is normalized in the closed rooms of the home. This requires more than beautiful words and formulations. It requires clear demands. It requires accountability and sometimes even political courage to be uncomfortable. Freedom is not negotiable.

Despite strategies and efforts, the challenges are significant. We see an uneven protection. It is not acceptable that safety depends on where in the country one lives.

That crimes are not solved constitutes a double betrayal, both against the victim and against the rule of law. We have a too weak chain of justice.

When it comes to the complexity of honor-related violence and oppression, long-term work is required, but also sharp measures here and now. The preventive work does not go all the way. We need to become better at detecting violence earlier, before it escalates, and at taking action.

If we are serious about this strategy, we need to have clear priorities. A stronger rule of law is required. More crimes must be investigated and solved. The protection for crime victims must be strengthened.

We need equivalent support throughout the country. It should not matter where one lives. The help must be there.

Early interventions are required. Schools, social services, and civil society must have tools to act early.

We need to spread more knowledge and competence. The mechanisms of violence must be understood in all parts of society, not only when it concerns physical violence. It also concerns economic violence and psychological violence, to give two additional examples.

It also requires a consistent individual perspective. No tradition, no norm, and no culture can stand above the individual's freedom.

Mr. Speaker! We can be proud of the work that is being done. But we cannot be satisfied. Strategies are important. But it is the results that count. Every time a woman does not receive protection, every time a child is forced to live in fear, and every time a crime is not solved, we have more to do.

I want to extend a warm and heartfelt thanks to everyone who stands on the front line every day. It is all the employees of the social services and schools, the police and the justice system, women's shelters and civil society organizations – all the voluntary forces that never give up. You make a difference every day.

Mr. Speaker! Let me take this opportunity to say something personal. This will be my last speech in this chamber – at least for this time, I might add. It has been a great privilege to work here after almost 30 years in municipal politics, to be involved in driving issues regarding people's freedom, security, and dignity. There is so much we need to cooperate on and change.

I leave the Riksdag with both pride in what has been achieved and humility before the work that remains. I want to urge those of you who continue: Do not give up! Do not hesitate! And never compromise on people's freedom! The struggle against violence and oppression is not a project. It is a responsibility.

I want to extend a warm thank you to all colleagues for the commitment, the respectful conversations, and the shared responsibility. Despite different opinions, we have together carried the work of democracy forward.

I also want to extend a big thank you to all the employees of the Riksdag for being so professional and persistent. Without you, this house does not function, I dare say.

Mr. Speaker! As a conclusion, I would still like to say: Freedom must be defended in society, in the rule of law, but also in the most private sphere. The most vulnerable person must be able to trust that society stands on her side.

(Applause)

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

Sofia Amloh (S)

Mr. Speaker! I would like to thank the member for the speech. I agree with many parts of it.

When it comes, above all, to the historical perspective on what the member's party, Liberalerna, has achieved, I can say that many times it has been in lockstep with social democracy, if we have not traded favors, as we have achieved these large, immensely important changes for Sweden. Unfortunately, the member's party has chosen another path over the last four years. We think that is unfortunate, and we regret it.

Now we are witnessing alarming reports about children being placed in protected shelters. We see that the thresholds for protected shelters have been raised and that the shelters are not being used as the preventive measure they are. The reform on the licensing requirement, which has entered into force, has sorted out not only unserious actors but also high-quality shelters run by women's shelters. Nearly 40 women's shelter-run homes have had to close down.

My question is: Why has the government not done anything about this? Why has one not given Ivo a clear mandate on how the permit requirement is to be applied, in order to give women and children the protection they are entitled to? And why has one not accelerated the evaluation of the legislation?

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

Helene Odenjung (L)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Sofia Amloh, for the question! It is indeed an important question.

If we go back, I believe we agree on stricter requirements for women's shelters and the conditions for how women's shelters and protected housing should generally be operated. I also believe it is important to be humble in the sense that an evaluation may take time.

In this case, I am not alone in having noted that the consequences of the tightened requirements have been drastic. But Member Camilla Rinaldo Miller previously described that in Jönköping, a solution has been reached with IOPs and that they are no longer as worried as before the introduction of the reform.

I simply believe that one needs to look further into this. Why this hasn't been done already, I cannot answer, to be honest. There is no point in making up that I have an answer to a question that I do not have an answer to. But I can say that it is a question that is really not of small dignity. I would like to assert that one is, on the contrary, looking into this expeditiously, because one does not want there to be fewer places.

With that said, however, we do not want poor housing either. When it comes to those who have not received permission, the reason has not only been a lack of toilets or that alcohol has been served, but it has also been really poor housing that has had to close. That is good.

But when it comes to the reason why more have not been placed, there are surely several explanations for that. I am humble regarding the fact that one needs to look further into that.

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

Sofia Amloh (S)

Mr. Speaker! The government is waiting so long with the evaluation that it will be until approximately the turn of the year 2027/28. There is a risk with that. How many women's shelters will remain when that evaluation arrives? One can accelerate, one can move it forward, and as said, one can also give a mandate to Ivo regarding the application of the legislation. It is not a big thing.

When one sees how this is spreading across the entire country – it is serious – one should not look away. One should act. That is what this government, and the member's party which sits in it, has not done. I think that is very unfortunate.

It is not just about legislation in this area. It is clear that money is also required. Given the actions, we also need to see funding. It is unfortunate that this government chooses to do nothing, even though we see this major crisis spreading and that women and children are not receiving the protection they have a right to. The government has allocated zero kronor in the supplementary budget. The Social Democrats have allocated 100 million just in the supplementary budget.

Why has this government not done more, if this is as important and as serious as it is presented as here?

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

Helene Odenjung (L)

Mr. Speaker! I do not sit in the government – I represent a party that sits in the government.

When it comes to the long-term funding of women's shelters and protected housing, the Liberals, both myself and many representatives before me, have for a very long time pushed for funding of protected housing. This is in the ordinary budget. That there were no funds in the supplementary budget – that it is zero kronor – sounds nice to say here in the chamber when you have put money in your budget. But in reality, it is not true. There are funds set aside in the ordinary budget.

But with that said, I still look with concern at what is happening around the country. I am convinced that both my party colleagues around the country and you who will remain here – I address the rest of the members in the chamber – will pursue both the government and your own representatives in municipalities and regions to ensure that the cooperation works better. At this stage in the final phase, I can afford to say that I still think it is too much that the government and the Riksdag blame municipalities and regions, and a bit the other way around.

I believe we can do better. I believe we need to join forces to together create a significantly better society, not just for the vulnerable children but actually on very many levels. I believe we would all benefit from taking a shared responsibility.

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

Marléne Lund Kopparklint (-)

Mr. Speaker! I would like to begin by moving to approve the committee's proposal.

My colleague Member Sara Gille has touched on several important topics. However, I want to focus on the children. I think of the children sitting in their rooms listening and who hear voices being raised through the wall, learn to recognize the footsteps in the hallway, and feel in their stomachs when something is about to happen. And I think of the children who go to school the next morning because they have learned to act as if nothing has happened.

When we talk about violence in close relationships, we talk a lot about the adult who is subjected to it. That is natural and important. But we must never forget the children who live in the midst of the violence. We should talk about them just as much. These are children who may never be beaten themselves but who nevertheless have their lives marked by fear, anxiety, and insecurity. But they are also children who themselves are subjected to psychological or physical violence or sexual abuse. We know that children who grow up with violence run an increased risk of mental ill-health, difficulties in school, and problems much later in life. In the worst cases, the victimization leads to self-harming behavior and suicide.

Mr. Speaker! That is why we must become better at detecting these children, and that is the Sweden Democrats' ambition. What worries me most is not always the violence we are aware of, but the violence we do not see, which affects children who never tell. Only one in ten children who are subjected to sexual abuse tells about it.

Therefore, we can never place the responsibility on the children; instead, it is we adults who must take responsibility in this area. The children often do not have the words. Some do not even understand that what they have been subjected to is wrong. Others believe that is how families function.

That is why the school plays an important role. The teacher, the school nurse, the counselor and the leisure staff who meet these children every day see the changes: The children become more tired, more restless, quieter. But seeing is not the same as acting.

That is why we need to continue strengthening the knowledge of how violence manifests in children and give adults the courage to ask the questions that sometimes feel difficult to ask. It is about early detection and preventive work, something that the government and Sverigedemokraterna highlight.

Mr. Speaker! There are children who at this moment are sitting at home and hoping that the evening will be calm. There are children who went to the school graduation with a lump in their stomachs. While the others looked forward to the summer holidays, those children knew that their sanctuary would be closed.

There are children who carry secrets that no child should have to carry. They do not need fancy phrasing, and they do not need adults who do not see – on the contrary. We need a society that actually acts when children are exposed to these difficulties.

Mr. Speaker! I wish I could say that we have arrived, but we have not. But I feel a greater security in that the government continues to strengthen the work for children's right to safety and protection. Every child who is identified in time, receives help and avoids being subjected to [abuse] is a child who is given a different future.

Mr. Speaker! As this is the final debate, I would like to wish you a pleasant summer.

(Applause)

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

Mats Berglund (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Freedom is a big word. But for those who live with violence in their daily lives, freedom is something very concrete, which can also be very fleeting.

Violence in close relationships, men's violence against women, honor-related oppression, prostitution and human trafficking are some of the most serious violations of people's freedom. It is not just about crimes; it is about power, about norms and about who is allowed to live in safety.

The government is presenting a national strategy, and that is good. But from the perspective of the Miljöpartiet, we see clear deficiencies. The strategy lacks sharpness, it lacks important perspectives, and it risks not reaching those who need it most.

Mr. Speaker! The preventive work is crucial. We know that violence does not arise in a vacuum. It is shaped in environments where inequality and destructive norms take hold. Therefore, we must invest more long-term – in schools, civil society, and local work. It is about working with norms, about giving our young people tools to manage relationships, and about identifying risks early.

Here we mean that the strategy is not sufficient. It lacks clear commitments and long-term funding. Without this, the work risks becoming short-sighted.

Mr. Speaker! When violence occurs, society must be there. The person subjected to it must receive support quickly and in a legally secure manner. But today, the support varies depending on where in the country you live. That is not how it should be; it is not reasonable. The person who leaves a violent relationship finds themselves in one of the most risky situations a human being can be in. In that case, the support must be equivalent. The state needs to take greater responsibility. And civil society, which often does crucial work, must be given stable conditions.

Mr. Speaker! I would particularly like to highlight two perspectives that are all too weakly represented in the strategy.

The first is the LGBTQI perspective. LGBTQI people run an increased risk of being subjected to violence, often in forms that look different, such as threats of being outed or control linked to identity. But in the strategy, this is almost completely invisible. It is a problem, because when the policy does not see it, the support risks not functioning.

The second point, Mr. Speaker, is the perspective of people with disabilities. Persons with disabilities are particularly vulnerable and often face greater obstacles when it comes to receiving help. This can involve dependency on the perpetrator or a lack of accessibility. This requires targeted measures, accessible support interventions, and increased competence. Simply mentioning this in passing is not enough.

Mr. Speaker! At its core, this is about freedom: the freedom to live without fear and the freedom to be who you are. That freedom is not equally distributed today. Therefore, we need a strategy that is sharper, more inclusive, and more action-oriented – a strategy that encompasses everyone.

I vote in favor of reservation 3.

(Applause)

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

Sara Gille (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, the member, for the speech! I thought to touch briefly on the fact that the member belongs to a party that has representatives who have refused to hold women's hands. It has been justified with religion. The Sweden Democrats believe that women and men should be treated equally and that one must stand up for women's freedom and equal value.

Miljöpartiet is also a party with recurring connections to the Turkish Grey Wolves.

I would therefore like to ask the member: Does the Green Party consider it compatible with Swedish equality that women and men are treated differently with reference to religious norms?

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

Mats Berglund (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Sara Gille, for the question! I believe the member is referring to events that took place over ten years ago. In 2015, there were, I believe, two incidents, and the party dealt with them very quickly. It concerned Grå vargarna. There was one person who left the party immediately after this.

This matter regarding not shaking hands also applied to a person who left the party.

I will not ask any questions about all the problems that exist in Sara Gille's party. We have seen a number of scandals in her party just in the last week, just like almost every week, I would say.

I think this debate is completely superfluous. For Miljöpartiet, the equal value of all people is extremely important. It lies at the core of our politics.

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

Sara Gille (SD)

Mr. Speaker! For the Sweden Democrats, it is self-evident that women's freedom, equality, and democratic values must never be compromised; hence what the member himself raised regarding last week, namely the veil ban. It is something that we stand firm on wanting to be introduced.

But let me return to Miljöpartiet. These are recurring incidents. It is not something that lies solely far back in time, but it is also highly topical today.

Again: Is it acceptable according to Miljöpartiet to refuse to take women in hand just because they are women?

(Applause)

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

Mats Berglund (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I actually do not know what the member is referring to when she says that it is recurring. This was actually something that we addressed immediately, and it is over ten years since it happened.

What is recurring are the problems in Sara Gille's party. Shortly put, something happens every week.

Let me answer the member's question: Men and women shall be treated equally. We are a feminist party. We hold equality very highly. It is about the rights of hbtqi persons and the rights of trans persons. I could also ask Sara Gille about this.

Ways of greeting look very different in different parts of the world. In Sweden, we hug very often, at least in our party. That is not the case if one travels a little bit down in Europe. There it is very unusual. But with that said, I think that men and women should be treated in the same way. That incident, where we had a man who did not want to hold a woman's hand, we resolved. That member, who had no external positions of trust, left the party.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(Decisions were made under § 7.)

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