Equality and measures against discrimination

Merit Frost Lindberg (M)

Madam Speaker! Equality is a matter of freedom that is rooted in all people's equal value. Women and men shall have the same power to shape society and their own lives. That is the overarching goal of equality policy. And Sweden is one of the world's most equal countries.

This, however, provides little comfort for all those women in Sweden who today live under the most severe form of oppression, with threats and violence as an everyday reality, for all those families who have lost a daughter or a sister, or for all those children who have lost their mother because of their father's blows.

After eight years with the previous government, not the slightest sign of improvement is visible. Today, on average, the same number of women are murdered annually in Sweden as ten years ago, and honor violence has been given space to spread.

The Social Democratic government was in no hurry. It took a full four years, after the Riksdag's announcement, before the Riksdag could vote to make honor crimes a separate criminal classification. And when it finally happened, unfortunately, the expansions of the legislation that the Moderaterna had proposed were missing. Just as when the penalties for rape and sexual crimes were reviewed, we had to conclude that the Socialdemokraterna were not prepared to go as far as we Moderaterna to protect women and children.

The Left Party, on the other hand, continues unabashedly to downplay the significance of honor violence and refers to racism and xenophobia. In order to avoid even the slightest risk that persons from a certain culture could be suspected, they would rather sacrifice the rights of the victims. But let us speak plainly for once. Honor violence is upheld precisely by norms and culture.

I had a friend who lived with his mother and sister, and he suffered severe distress. He was forced to set rules for how his sister should live. There were times when she was to come home and instructions on whom she was allowed to meet. In this home, none of this was followed, but outwardly he tried desperately to maintain the image that his rules applied. The pressure from father at a distance weighed incredibly heavily on this young boy's shoulders, and the image had to be maintained in front of his friends so that he would not be destroyed as a man.

To downplay and remain silent about honor violence is not only to betray the girls, women, and LGBTQ+ people who are subjected to it. It is also to deny help to all those who, against their will, are pressured to turn their fists against their mother or sister.

We in Sweden are often held up as an example when it comes to equality. But we have opened the door for a large number of people from other countries who have not come as far. These are completely different cultures, where the woman can even be under the man's guardianship. We have denied for far too long that this creates difficulties.

If one is to be able to solve problems, one must start by acknowledging that they exist. We must also have a confidence that people can adapt and give people an honest chance to do so. Then everyone must be allowed to take part in which rights and obligations apply here in Sweden.

The parties that have done their utmost to profile themselves on issues of equality have done their least to protect and act. But the Moderate-led government with coalition partners is now acting with force.

According to the Tidö Agreement, proposals regarding social introduction for asylum seekers, social orientation for newcomers, and SFI teaching will be included. There will be an increased emphasis on equality, women's rights, freedom of religion, and the other fundamental values of society. And this will be mandatory - for real.

I also want to highlight two very far-reaching and important reforms that will have great significance for women's safety and empowerment.

One is a complete and thorough review of the penal code. This includes, among other things, harsher penalties for violent and sexual crimes. The legislation on restraining orders shall be reviewed with a focus on increasing the protection and freedom of movement for crime victims. The criminal law protection against so-called conversion attempts shall be reviewed. Innocence checks shall be criminalized. The Tidö Agreement also contains measures concerning harsher sentencing scales for honor-related crimes.

It is time that women and children are given a human value in the legislation. Increasing the penalties is, firstly, about ensuring that there are consequences for breaking the law and harming other people. A punishment is a punishment. Secondly, it is about the crime victim receiving redress, at least through the legislation. Thirdly, it is about protecting crime victims and society from perpetrators. A shift in perspective will finally occur – from perpetrator to crime victim.

Economic violence is also a serious part of the violence that women are subjected to, and it needs to be given more attention. For a woman to live in a relationship without having her own means of support or a daily context outside the home creates a situation of dependency that is very difficult to escape from. The first and most important step to increase empowerment is for women to have work and their own means of support to a greater extent. Therefore, the work principle and the benefit reform that will be implemented are also crucial for equality.

In the 70s, joint taxation for married couples was abolished. Women's wages then became significantly more valuable, and employment increased sharply. It should always pay to work. There is now the same need for reform in this area. This time it concerns primarily foreign-born women, who must make the same journey that was made back then, namely going from home to work. It is one of the absolutely most important steps to take forward for a more equal Sweden.

In conclusion, I would like to move for the approval of the committee's proposal.

(Applause)

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

Sofia Amloh (S)

Madam Speaker! Now we have listened to the Moderates' speech. The member perhaps spent the majority of their speaking time not telling us about their own policy, but rather telling us about what has not been done or about criticizing everyone else who has governed previously. There was very little looking forward.

I believe that equality is mentioned twice in the Tidö Agreement, and in that case, I think I am rounding up.

It should pay to work, we also heard in the presentation. Yes, but the working women who make up the majority of those who carry the entire welfare state will get fewer coworkers. They will find it even tougher and even harder. In what way does it pay to work then?

The crime victim is also emphasized several times here. That is good. We agree with that. But in the report, there is also an announcement from the government parties and the Sverigedemokraterna regarding a zero vision against violence in close relationships – that is, not men's violence against women. Why does one choose to blur out the structural societal problem, and why does one not focus on the perpetrators if it is them that one wants to reach?

Why do we not want to talk about the perpetrator? Why not implement the measures that are aimed specifically at the perpetrator? Why do the Moderaterna not want to continue to lead the goal regarding men's violence against women?

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

Merit Frost Lindberg (M)

Madam Speaker! I believe I mentioned quite a lot about our policy moving forward. The subsidy reform and the work principle that I mentioned will be crucial for women's empowerment, and the sentencing scales are about protecting women and children from violence and from being murdered, which is happening continuously in Sweden today.

There are very many dimensions when one talks about equality. The very crudest form of oppression is what women who live under threat and violence are subjected to, and they die, as has been said, today. The sentencing scales are crucial for protecting them, and I therefore want to pose the counter-question as to why the Social Democrats have not done more when this is the very, very crudest form of oppression. You have not been the driving party when it comes to protecting women and children. The Moderates have pushed both for honor crimes to become a criminal classification and that the legislation should be expanded significantly more than what occurred during the previous government's time. I would very much like to have an answer as to why there was resistance to moving forward in this.

When it comes to work and how it should be rewarding for women to enter the workforce, as I mentioned, the economic situation is a very important part of the possibility of leaving a relationship where violence and oppression occur. Therefore, the work line is crucial for these women. If one does not even have their own livelihood, one lacks not only finances, but one also lacks the daily interaction with people outside the home who can provide support and help and a sense of security in leaving the relationship.

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

Sofia Amloh (S)

Madam Speaker! I choose first to comment and respond regarding the new legislation concerning honor-related violence and oppression. It landed on the Riksdag's table under a Social Democratic-led government, and I think that says enough about what role we have had in that work.

Norms were also raised in the speech from the Moderaterna. We will return to what is included in this committee report regarding the zero vision and that the Moderaterna have a very high tail-end and very high ambitions. I do not know exactly how it will look, but the self-confidence is great. I think that is a good but perhaps not so humble attitude towards the big problem that this actually is.

In what way will the preventive work be included in the zero vision? It is very good that we tighten and increase the penalties. But when we reach the point where the violence is already being committed, it has already gone far too far. It is a gigantic failure. The great victory and the struggle that we must undertake is that the violence should never occur, that the woman is never beaten. That is where we should aim to get to. What is the Moderates' ambition for this?

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

Merit Frost Lindberg (M)

Madam Speaker! We are in complete agreement that preventive work must be combined with support when violence does occur. It is that combination that can bring success to this work.

When it comes to the zero vision, the focus is obviously on perpetrators. I believe I was clear that it is important. But in the goal that we have, and which both this and previous governments have worked on for many years, the zero vision is not limited solely to violence against women. For that reason, if one is to adopt a zero vision, we have expanded it to not only focus on women, even though it is clearly the main focus.

I do not know if the zero vision in itself is the important thing, but of course, it is what we all strive for. No woman in Sweden today should be murdered. All women should today be able to live a free life where they make their own choices. In other respects, it can be noted that the Social Democrats themselves rejected a motion on the zero vision a year ago.

I do not agree that it says so much that honor violence ended up on the Riksdag's table during the Socialdemokraternas government's time. I want to remind you that it took four years. It is not acceptable if one wants to achieve success.

We Moderates have confidence that we will negotiate and act, something that has been missing for far too long. These are complicated issues that will take time to solve. Honor violence is also a significantly more difficult form of violence in the sense that it does not stop at one person but involves entire families and neighborhoods. When it is given the opportunity to spread, it requires completely different measures to address.

Here we have several parts, but we are also working, I want to say, with the preventive work. Among other things, we have the ten-year national strategy which continues.

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

Janine Alm Ericson (MP)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Merit Frost Lindberg, for the speech! It is still good to hear that even this government has certain ambitions in the area of equality. There have been reasons to fear the opposite, partly considering how much equality is mentioned in the Tidö Agreement, which was taken up here, and partly that it has also been stated that one is not a feminist government.

This is a step backward, and it is embarrassing for Sweden, which has been seen internationally as an example in these matters. We hear in international negotiations, for example, how people no longer trust that Sweden will be the country that pushes for better provisions for the rights of women and girls. It is very sad to hear.

It is also unfortunate to hear the member use attack is the best defense as their method and thereby put forward very much that can at best be seen as untruths. One does not highlight one's own policy better by talking down others, especially not when it has been done very, very much in this area by the previous government with MP equality ministers at the helm.

We presented, for example, an action plan against men's violence against women and against honor-related violence and oppression. These are points that the current government has also taken on and is continuing to work on, which is naturally very pleasing. In these issues, we should stand more united and work for results instead of fine phrasing, which unfortunately is still the only thing Merit Frost Lindberg has to refer to.

I would therefore like to know what in the current government's policy goes further than the proposals that the previous government put forward when it comes to increased penalties, deportation from the country, and several of the parts that we are talking about now. What does this government do better?

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

Merit Frost Lindberg (M)

Madam Speaker! I thank you for your questions, Janine Alm Ericson.

As I said earlier, a combination of preventive work and action when women are subjected to crime is the only key to achieving success in these areas.

I also said that the ten-year national strategy is based heavily on the investigation that the Alliance government had carried out, and that work will continue. We are now also looking at the 99 measures contained in the strategy, namely what needs to be changed. When one looks at how honor violence has spread, one can see that over eight years there has been no noticeable improvement in the statistics. We must nevertheless be able to state that together.

It is a large and important task ahead to identify what can be changed. Part of this is the sentencing scales. In my speech, I counted up several parts that will be changed. The Moderates have, when it comes to this, been driving for honor crimes to become a separate criminal classification. It also concerns the legislation, so that children can be prevented from being taken out of Sweden to be married off. It is probably many children who have been saved by that change in the legislation. The preventive work is extremely important.

I can turn the question back. Parties now feel attacked because I have mentioned that their work has not yielded any particular results over such a long period. No specific requirements have been set for people to learn Swedish and take part in the rights and obligations that one has in Sweden. It should have been mandatory, but we all know that has not happened. One has also not been proactive in the legislative work. What does one want to do?

(THIRD DEPUTY SPEAKER: I would like to point out to the members that there is a clock on the rostrum which it is good to keep an eye on.)

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

Janine Alm Ericson (MP)

Madam Speaker! I hear "look at", "identify" and "statistics". I truly believe we are fairly in agreement on the problem picture, namely that it is extremely serious. This concerns in particular men's violence against women and honor-related violence and oppression. That is the starting point.

The previous government started an active effort, including looking at the sentencing scales. But it sounds from the member that nothing is being done and that it would not be a task to be continued. Now, something new is to be invented, investigated, and take time. Instead, continue with the important work, the work that actually makes a difference.

It was the previous government that introduced legislation intended to make it more difficult to take children out of the country to get married. It is on our checklist, and yes, it has saved many children. Therefore, this must continue to be an active effort that is also allocated resources.

The Board of Directors also speaks a lot about the preventive work. That is pleasing. It is only when the children are small that one can change norms, introduce other thoughts, and break the patterns in the problematic cases. Let us invest in that.

I would like to know what preventive measures the government is planning. In the general debate, it sounds rather the opposite. People talk about removing gender fluff in schools. It sounds good and bold, but it is precisely when one talks about gender, gender roles, gender power dynamics, consent and so on that one actually achieves results and change. How does the government intend to proceed?

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

Merit Frost Lindberg (M)

Madam Speaker! We are moving from words to action. I have given several examples of how the penal code will be changed. In those instances, the Social Democrats and other parties have been, to say the least, reluctant and have voted against several proposals previously. But a major effort is underway to also work preventatively.

Among other things, we have conversations with voluntary organizations and women's organizations that work with the issues on a voluntary basis, including what the women's shelters that meet the vulnerable women consider to be important. The County Administrative Board in Östergötland County has received a reinforced mandate to support regional development when it comes to measures to combat honor violence and oppression. The National Board of Health and Welfare has received a reinforced mandate to strengthen the national support to the municipalities in their work to provide support to those affected by violence and arrange permanent housing, which is often an acute part to get in order. The National Centre for Women's Peace provides support for women affected by violence, and they also work to increase knowledge. It is a matter of a combination of both continuing to increase knowledge and working preventatively in a purely practical sense. The women's and girls' shelters can now submit applications in accordance with a new ordinance to work preventatively to counter the violence.

There are several different parts, and there are also writings in the Tidö Agreement where it is expressed that one should work preventatively and support vulnerable women. We are working both with legislative changes and with all the organizations that exist today to work preventatively.

I do not really know what else is meant by taking action.

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

Helena Vilhelmsson (C)

Madam Speaker! I thank the member for the speech.

Men's violence against women takes infinitely many forms. In addition to pure physical violence, there is also psychological violence, economic violence, and not least what we collectively call post-violence.

Equality is an area that covers several policy areas. It is a horizontal theme, including social services, criminal justice policy, economic issues and self-sufficiency.

I intended to steer a bit on the issue of violence and custody. Post-violence is a major problem. A few years ago, a decision was made regarding a new law on child peace - I don't remember exactly what the law is called - which means that children become crime victims when one parent assaults the other in front of the children's eyes.

The Moderates are responsible for both justice policy and social services in the government. I would like to know what is being done on that front to prevent violence. How does the work proceed in the Government Offices? This applies especially when it goes as far as it must not go, that one parent kills the other parent and the question of custody. How is the government working with that issue?

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

Merit Frost Lindberg (M)

Madam Speaker! There must be a long-term perspective in the work for women and children when violence occurs. The activities of the women's and girls' shelters are very important. It is often they who enter the acute situation, and it needs to be ensured that they can work long-term and sustainably without having to worry about grants. The organizations that work to protect women in a violent situation are an important part of the work moving forward. There, we conduct a dialogue with those who work practically and daily see the horrific situations regarding what they see as important moving forward to progress and provide even more support.

The National Board of Health and Welfare has received an expanded mandate to strengthen the national support to the municipalities in their work to provide support to those affected by violence and to arrange permanent housing. There are several different parts to that work.

Regarding honor violence, the national center, which already exists in Östergötland County, has received reinforcement to combat honor violence and oppression. We have also made a permanent change so that the work at this national center can be carried out permanently.

The long-term work is important, but housing is absolutely a very important part of this for both women and children in order to be able to create a new, secure life.

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

Helena Vilhelmsson (C)

Madam Speaker! I would like to put further pressure on the question, for it is infinitely serious.

When the courts today rule on care, housing, and contact with a parent who has committed violence, they do not take into account whether there is a risk of violence or even if violence occurs, which they are required to do according to the legislation.

When one forces children into contact with a violent parent, and when one in this case forces a mother to hand over the children to a violent father, one actually forces crime victims to associate with their perpetrator. What other crime victims do we force into this in Swedish legislation? It is completely horrific.

I really hope that the investigation "A childhood free from violence" actually delivers, and very soon. The problem with that investigation is that it does not cover the problem I mentioned – that custody can still today remain with a parent who has murdered the other parent.

I know that the member does not sit in the government, but I would like to know a little about the timeline for this work.

Furthermore, tonight we vote here in the chamber on a motion from Centerpartiet which has exactly that wording: in cases where one parent kills the other parent, custody shall be lost automatically and immediately - not after four years, as we have read about in the media recently.

My wonder is whether it might even be the case that the Moderaterna and other parties can imagine voting for this proposal tonight in order to put further pressure on the government. If not, when will something happen in this extremely important issue?

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

Merit Frost Lindberg (M)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Helena Vilhelmsson! You are highlighting very important issues.

We are in complete agreement that it is a completely unacceptable situation when children are forced to have contact with a parent who has assaulted or even murdered the other parent. It is a situation that cannot continue. I believe and hope that all parties today are prepared to make a difference there.

A transformation process is underway involving several different departments, and I feel very confident in saying that there will be proposals for changes to the legislation regarding exactly this.

We have seen far too many examples of children who have even been murdered by a parent because they have been forced to have contact with a parent they are afraid of. It is horrific, and that is not how it is intended to work - at least not if the Moderaterna and this government are allowed to run the country.

So we are in complete agreement; that is what I really want to say. Children's safety and women's safety must always take precedence over a parent's rights. The Government has also been communicating on the issue that it is that attitude that will apply going forward.

A major review of several different legislative areas in a quite comprehensive way is underway. This will definitely be a part of it, and there will be proposals with a focus on crime victims and a focus on safety for women and children.

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

Sofia Amloh (S)

Madam Speaker! Today we are dealing with the motion report concerning equality and discrimination.

In a time like this, when the climate of conversation is tough, polarization and extreme statements take up a large space and democracy is attacked from several sides, it is particularly important to stand firmly, securely and uncompromisingly for equality and against all forms of discrimination.

More than 40 percent of all reports of gender discrimination in working life that were received by the Equality Ombudsman in 2022 concerned discrimination based on pregnancy or parenthood, something that I believe many of us take for granted no longer occurs and is outdated. Unfortunately, that is not the case.

From the perspective of society and politics, all forms of discrimination must be combated vigorously. We Social Democrats believe that the government should work for and take further measures to ensure effective anti-discrimination work.

Madam Speaker! Sweden is one of the world's most equal countries. Nevertheless, men's violence against women is one of our greatest societal problems. The violence can be psychological and physical but also economic.

Economic violence can take several forms. It involves the man, through threats and violence, taking out loans in the woman's name or forcing the woman to provide her bank details. Other examples are that the man opens credit cards in the woman's name or transfers assets. It can also involve the woman not being allowed to decide over her own finances, being forbidden from working, or needing to ask for permission to make purchases. Regardless of what the economic violence looks like, it is a very effective way to exercise power and control that makes it difficult for the woman to leave a destructive relationship. Knowledge-raising measures are needed in several parts of society and political action is also needed against this form of violence.

Every three weeks, a woman is killed by a man, and more than one rape is committed every hour, every day of the year. The Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention also estimates that approximately 80 percent of violence against women is never reported to the police.

Every woman is someone's daughter and perhaps someone's mother, sister, colleague and friend. But above all, she is a human being in her own right. Every murdered woman is a gigantic failure and a major setback in the struggle for an equal society free from violence.

Just as it is the case with gang crime, zero tolerance is required towards crime against women. The issue requires the same status, resources, and commitment and must be taken as seriously as men's violence against other men. We politicians and the police must show that society does not accept threats and violence. No woman or girl should be assaulted, threatened, persecuted, or subjected to violence without targeted measures being taken against the perpetrator.

Men's violence against women is not a private matter but concerns serious crimes, crimes such as rape, aggravated assault, attempted murder, murder and persecution. It is a criminality that occurs around the clock, all year round.

Concepts such as crimes in close relationships and violence in close relationships signal that these crimes are something other than serious crimes that fall under general prosecution. But the crime does not become less serious because it occurs at home and not out on the street.

Violence against women is neither a natural disaster nor something that happens randomly. In most cases, the perpetrator is known to society, and the women have alerted, left the relationship and done everything in their power to protect themselves and their children. Yet, they are murdered by men who hate them. There are no reasonable euphemisms for this reality.

Madam Speaker! The goal of the gender equality policy is that women and men shall have the same power to shape society and their own lives. Included therein are six sub-policy goals, and the sixth goal concerns men's violence against women. There is, among other things, a national strategy, an action program, and a 99-point program, but we see that it is not enough. It is time to send a clear signal that all sectors of society need to consolidate further through a powerful counterattack where a zero vision for men's violence against women is introduced.

Naturally, the preventive and attitude-changing work must also apply to violence in same-sex relations and violence against boys and men, just as the sixth gender equality sub-goal already clearly describes. It is just as bad, but it is not structural. The major structural problem in our society is undoubtedly men's violence against women, and therefore a zero vision should be about exactly that.

Madam Speaker! In the report, a notification to the government is proposed, but it does not come from us opposition parties, as one might think. Instead, it is the government parties and the Sverigedemokraterna who are issuing the mandate to their own government to introduce a zero vision - but then against violence in close relationships and not against men's violence against women. The notification from the government parties and the Sverigedemokraterna means that one chooses no longer to stand firm on highlighting the structural problem. One does not dare to be clear about who the perpetrator is. This is done despite all the facts, all the statistics, all the police reports and investigations.

Despite countless stories and testimonies, one now actively chooses to shuffle the cards in Swedish gender equality policy and betray all the women who have been subjected to, all women who are being subjected to, and all women who will be subjected to men's violence. They are now reduced to not being mentioned. They are being erased. It shall no longer be clear who is the perpetrator, according to the government parties and the Sverigedemokraterna.

We Social Democrats stand firm that a zero vision against men's violence against women is what is needed, which the women's peace organizations clearly see the need for and have as a political demand. We Social Democrats have no other opinion than theirs. We therefore move for approval of reservation number 7, but we obviously stand behind all of our reservations.

Madam Speaker! I want to conclude by saying that we will vote on this later today and that it is still possible to change one's mind. It is possible to continue to stand firmly and without compromise for equality, even though it is very difficult to do so in times like these. For it is both so simple and so difficult: Men must stop hitting.

(Applause)

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

Camilla Rinaldo Miller (KD)

Madam Speaker! I would like to ask a question to Member Sofia Amloh, but I must start by saying the following. We have a zero vision for road fatalities, and we were quite in agreement on that. Wouldn't it have felt strange if we had decided that we should have a zero vision for road fatalities when it concerns young people but not when it concerns old people, men and women – because it doesn't happen as often, so it is not as important? For me, it would have felt very strange.

When we in the committee sat with the preparation of, among other things, S's motion regarding a zero vision for men's violence against women, the Social Democrats, together with the members from C, V, and MP, had the opportunity to stand behind our proposal for a zero vision for all violence in close relationships. This, therefore, does not only concern men's violence against women. I would like to ask: If we decide that we are to have a zero vision against all violence in close relationships, does Sofia Amloh think that it means that we suddenly do not mean that it applies to men's violence against women?

I would also like to ask – and I believe this is important for everyone listening – why it was not possible to get a unanimous committee on this issue and this decision. Why does the member not want a zero vision for all violence in close relationships?

In this speech, Magnus Jacobsson (KD) agreed.

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

Sofia Amloh (S)

Madam Speaker! I thank the member for the questions.

In the questions from the member, we hear once again that the structural problem is being blurred and not mentioned. They are mixing up the cards. They say they are against all violence - yes, we can also sign off on that, but when it comes to actually proposing measures and directing efforts towards those who are perpetrators, the government parties begin to waver. It is perfectly clear. It would be far too uncomfortable - or, I don't know; I don't know what the arguments are.

For us, however, it is very important to stand up for the fact that it is about exactly structural violence - men's violence against women - and to hold that line. We have the national sub-goals, and the sixth sub-goal concerns men's violence against women. But as I said in my speech, these parts are also described, that is to say, which others are affected by violence. Does this mean that even the national equality goals should be changed with the government parties' policy?

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

Camilla Rinaldo Miller (KD)

Madam Speaker! I thank you for the answer. Suddenly, Sofia Amloh says that she can imagine standing behind a zero vision for all violence in close relationships, so perhaps we can get a unanimous chamber when we are to vote here this afternoon.

I cannot understand why the sub-objective the member refers to would need to be changed. A zero vision against men's violence against women is, of course, included in the zero vision for all violence in close relationships. It is not that it disappears. It is not that it reduces the importance of continuing the preventive work. But it is important that we highlight all violence in close relationships.

Just as I said regarding the zero vision in traffic, I cannot see any difference. All violence in close relationships needs to be prevented and put an end to. Regardless of who is being subjected to it, we simply cannot accept that it occurs. I would like to ask if the member means that the violence is not as serious when it occurs in the opposite relationship.

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

Sofia Amloh (S)

Madam Speaker! As I said in my speech, it is just as bad, but it is not structural. If we are to get anywhere with changing this, it is the structural problems that we must tackle, make visible, counteract, and mobilize around. It is men's violence against women that is structural, and we must not sweep that under the rug, put it in some filing cabinet, or neglect it so that it is blurred out. We must be clear that it is precisely that violence that is structural and that we shall tackle it.

I really hope that the government parties and the Sweden Democrats do not make any major changes regarding what structural violence actually is about. I really hope so.

(Applause)

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

Camilla Rinaldo Miller (KD)

Madam Speaker! I would first like to say that the Christian Democrats support the committee's proposed decision in the motion report AU7.

Madam Speaker! In our documents, there is a good summary of what it is we are debating today, and I would like to share this with the listeners and viewers. In the report, the committee deals with 78 motions from the general motion period 2022 in the areas of equality and measures against discrimination. The motion requests concern, among other things, the appointment of inquiries in the area of equality policy, the work against men's violence against women and against honor-related violence and oppression, measures for equality in working life, and various initiatives to counter discrimination in society.

Madam Speaker! The ultimate proof of an unequal society is violence against women. The development in the world is worrying. As the member before me was in, one in three women in the world is subjected to physical or sexual violence during her lifetime. Every tenth child is forced to experience their father's violence against their mother. And every third week, a woman is killed by a man she has had a relationship with. The fact is that during the initial months of this year, we unfortunately see in the statistics that it is going in the wrong direction.

Violence causes great suffering and can lead to lifelong consequences. It is not enough with just words. Action is needed, a concrete action against men's violence against women. It is obvious. But we Christian Democrats do not think that is enough. Violence must never be tolerated or accepted in our society, regardless of against whom it occurs. Therefore, we believe that a zero vision for all violence in close relationships is needed.

I want to be clear that it is not enough for only the government to act. Municipalities, regions and civil society also need to act. And all of us, you and I, need to act. We need a zero vision for violence in close relationships. I have been clear about that in the chamber earlier.

Madam Speaker! I raise this because I unfortunately believe there is a large dark figure in the statistics regarding violence by women against men and violence in same-sex relationships. We cannot accept that. We must broaden the perspective. I personally have a family friend who has been subjected to it.

My perception regarding violence by women against men is that it is not physical violence but mostly psychological. There are also studies that report that the vulnerability of men and women is equal. But the research shows that it involves different types of violence; as I was mentioning, it is more psychological violence than physical. That men report to a lesser extent is often due to the fact that it is somewhat degrading and harder to address when it is not physical violence.

Madam Speaker! We all have a task here, as we have said. We need to work more together to detect violence in close relationships. We need to dare to ask, as both manager and colleague, healthcare personnel, teacher, friend and fellow human being. We need to provide support, help someone out of a harmful relationship and never give up.

Madam Speaker! The Government is already engaged in intensive work on what I initially referred to as what we are debating today. It concerns the work against men's violence against women and against honor-related violence and oppression, on measures for equality in working life, and on various initiatives to counter discrimination in society.

For me as a Christian Democrat, it means incredibly much to see that our government is so actively working for an equality that makes a real difference. Real equality is not about quotas and mandatory shared parental leave. Real equality is the freedom to make one's own life choices.

That is why I, as a Christian Democrat, am extra happy that the government is now proposing that the number of double days should be doubled, from today's 30 to 60 days. Furthermore, the opportunity for parents to be home together is extended until the child is 15 months old. We already know that the double days have resulted in an increase in the proportion of fathers who have been home during the child's first time in life. It has also been shown to have a positive effect on mothers' mental and physical health.

Well-functioning families where we parents are present and share the responsibility for the family are the foundation for equality. It is there, in the close, secure and loving community, that we teach our children how we should treat one another. We teach them that every human being is a unique and irreplaceable individual and has the same absolute and inviolable value, regardless of gender, age, social position, functional variation, sexual identity, ethnic or religious affiliation. The Christian Democrats will continue to fight for a completely free parental insurance.

Madam Speaker! I know that the work will take time. I want to assure you who are listening that the work for every person's individual right to an equal and dignified life will be prioritized with the Christian Democrats in the government. Every fellow human being is valuable, and we who have received the trust to be part of influencing the development in the right direction shall do so. We must never stop fighting for real equality and for the opportunity to make one's own life choices.

(Applause)

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

Sofia Amloh (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member, for your speech! It was a very good description of precisely that psychological violence. It is good that we raise it in the debate. That which is not visible and cannot be touched I believe can many times be difficult to define oneself when one is in the vulnerable situation. It applies primarily to how it begins. It begins discreetly, with small jibes and in certain contexts, and it escalates systematically over time, and one becomes lulled into a destructive relationship.

It was particularly important and good that you underlined that. Thank you!

In my speech, I mentioned something that we have also brought up in the committee several times: that the form of violence known as economic violence should also be defined. It may not have received the attention required given how horrific it is. Economic violence should also be a form. Quite a few of us need to be more enlightened about how it manifests and how effective it is to take power over another human being and restrict precisely that economic space.

In what way does this government, which intends to work with equality for real, plan to do something about it in its work in the coming years?

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

Camilla Rinaldo Miller (KD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you for the question, Sofia Amloh!

I agree with you. When we talk about violence in close relationships, it is about much more than just the physical. That is why I mentioned the psychological, which you are also touching upon, and the economic violence.

I was almost instantly in a position where we had experienced it in our own lives. I know exactly what it is about. In that case, we needed to hide both ID documents and bank cards at our home so that the economic violence would not escalate. I know exactly what I am talking about.

I am incredibly happy and grateful that we have a Minister for Equality, Paulina Brandberg, who takes this seriously. She has taken hold of it and looks at the whole, not just what has been talked about for many years. Therefore, there are now various proposals on how we should address ensuring that one is not subjected to [harassment/violence].

It is, for example, far too easy today to take out loans in someone else's name. Mobile BankID is very good in many ways, but unfortunately, we see that it also provides an opportunity to access a person's identity and financial assets. The government is now reviewing how this can be made more difficult. This also applies to SMS loans, which it has also been far too easy to obtain and take in someone else's name.

We can probably help each other find good paths and good solutions here. The Government is really on it when it comes to finding effective ways to ensure that people are not subjected to economic violence.

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

Sofia Amloh (S)

Madam Speaker! Precis, it is the economic violence that I mentioned in the speech. I believe there is a dark figure. There is also a type of double punishment in this, to be subjected both to the economic violence and to the debt and shame it entails to have been controlled by another person and also to have been placed in a difficult economic situation. It is somewhat taboo among the general public to talk about finances.

It is probably not just me and the member who are familiar with this from our own experiences or stories or narratives that we have heard about, but I believe it is incredibly widespread. We need to get it on the table that one is not alone in this, just as with many other parts concerning this political area.

We Social Democrats look forward with anticipation to the proposals we are talking about. They are several different proposals, and we would very much like to hear more about exactly which ones will be put on the table.

One co-submission is that these women are very heavily in debt. The debt that they have to live with afterwards, I think it is possible to do something about. If this ambition exists, the Social Democrats definitely have a hand extended. We also have motions in the report concerning this. I want to particularly emphasize the importance of this and that we should do as much joint work as possible to achieve the change that is needed for these women.

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

Camilla Rinaldo Miller (KD)

Madam Speaker! It feels good, Sofia Amloh, that we are in agreement on this. One might think you saw what I just wrote on my paper when I realized that I forgot to mention debt relief.

It is an even more powerful violence when a person who has been subjected to economic violence is also left with debts afterwards. The Government sees opportunities regarding how to address debt restructuring so that it is not the crime victim who has to live with a double debt - the debt over having been subjected to or allowing oneself to be subjected to and falling into that trap, as well as the economic debt.

The government is underway with work to look at how we can address this so that we put the victim's best interests first, not the perpetrator's.

(THIRD DEPUTY SPEAKER: Before we proceed, I would like to remind that according to Swedish parliamentary custom, the speaker formally addresses their speech to the Speaker and thereby indirectly to the members of the Chamber. This means that the members speak about each other and not to each other. For example, one does not say "you" or "you all" to each other in the speaker's chair.)

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

Helena Vilhelmsson (C)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, the member for the presentation! There were many interesting things that I would like to discuss further, for example the parental insurance, where I do not agree at all with the member's premises.

The question of economic equality, which has recently been discussed, is interesting and extremely important. I am very interested in what proposals come from the government. There, we really need to work together.

I cannot help but dwell on what might seem foolish to an outsider, namely the definition of violence against women or of violence in close relationships. It was an interesting comparison that the member made in their previous exchange, regarding a zero vision in traffic and so on. When it tends to become a not-all-men discussion, which perhaps was not exactly the member's intention, I react with my thorns outward.

I could also use traffic as an example. If we decide to work for a zero vision for alcohol impairment in traffic, can we really say that? It is not all drivers who drive while intoxicated, but only a part of them. And can we really work for a zero vision for tax evasion? It is not all entrepreneurs who cheat, but only a part of them.

I do not understand why anyone thinks that measures against men's violence against women are not also excellent measures against all crimes in relationships. It is women who die in relationships where men exercise violence against women. It is obviously just as bad in all close relationships, but it is women who die. Why is it so important to say violence in close relationships instead of men's violence against women?

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

Camilla Rinaldo Miller (KD)

Madam Speaker! Now we shall see if I can stick to the rules of procedure. I apologize.

I thank Helena Vilhelmsson for the question. The member mentioned that a zero vision for men's violence against women would be better than a zero vision for violence in close relationships. But it is exactly the same example that Helena Vilhelmsson herself brings up, as not all men beat women. In that case, we cannot have any zero vision at all.

I would like to turn the question around and ask the same question to Helena Vilhelmsson that I asked member Sofia Amloh: Why could we not become a united committee in this and come to the conclusion that a zero vision for all violence in close relationships was needed?

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

Helena Vilhelmsson (C)

Madam Speaker! The truth is that there was actually no initiative at all regarding violence in close relationships, but rather it was a kind of negotiated solution. What existed were initiatives on a zero vision against men's violence against women, and there the Sweden Democrats also had a similar motion. It was a negotiated solution that the Tidö parties or the government parties obviously considered important.

Generally, one must first define a problem in order to address it. Then one must talk and talk about the problem so that everyone is more or less in agreement about it, and after that, one can come up with proposals for measures. It is no use coming up with proposals if people do not know what benefit they provide. In that case, the proposals will not be implemented.

Today, it is women who are dying in relationships with a man. The problem formulation for me then becomes men's violence against women, not hiding it in another formulation. Who is it really that deals with identity politics? Is it the one who dares to define a problem or the one who wraps it in something else?

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

Camilla Rinaldo Miller (KD)

Madam Speaker! I believe, unfortunately, that men also die from violence by women against them. It is incredibly important to me that all people are equally worthy, and therefore I want to see a zero vision for all violence in close relationships.

We can work on one track, but I believe it is important that we see the whole picture in this. It does not diminish the women who are vulnerable in any way, on the contrary. I believe that it can even be elevated to a higher, more important and more prioritized work.

Men's violence against women must cease, definitely, but all violence in close relationships must be stopped and prevented. To the extent that it is possible and as much as we politically have the power to do so, we shall do it.

In this speech, Magnus Jacobsson (KD) agreed.

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

Michael Rubbestad (SD)

Madam Speaker! The Sweden Democrats have several proposals in the area of equality and discrimination. It is pleasing to be able to announce that many of them have been captured by the government in one way or another and are therefore part of the report in the form of the committee's proposal for a decision.

Equality can be described as equality between the sexes, or, in somewhat longer terms, a social condition where both sexes in a society or within a certain group have the same status and respect and that everyone is equally worthy.

But what do these words actually mean? Is it that all people should get exactly the same outcome, or is it that all people should have exactly the same starting conditions?

To understand what is actually meant, I must begin by stepping back a little in time. There are slightly different ways to view when the struggle for equality and an equal society began. But three years that are often mentioned are 1405, 1792 and 1848.

As early as 1405, Christine de Pizan - I apologize if I pronounce her name incorrectly - wrote the book *The City of Women*, which by many is considered the first piece of literature where the claim that women would lack reason or that they have never achieved anything great is questioned. Somewhere here, about 600 years ago, in connection with the increase in writing and literacy during the Renaissance, the first seeds in the struggle for equality began to sprout.

It will however have to wait until the 1700s before we can discern any form of feminist movement when Mary Wollstonecraft in the book A Vindication of the Rights of Woman in 1792 argues that women are not inferior to men by nature, but only appear to be so because they lack the formal education that they have been denied by men.

Somewhere here, the questions begin to be taken seriously. Wollstonecraft put forward the ideas that both men and women should be regarded as rational beings and that society should be based on reason. Liberal feminism, or rational feminism, was in some sense born.

It would however take another approximately 60 years, until July 1848, before women formally organized themselves for the first time and feminism in some sense could be considered founded, which occurred under the motto: We consider these truths to be self-evident - that all men and women are equal.

They also defined the meaning of the concept of feminism, that it is an ideology whose goal is that women should have the same rights and opportunities as men.

In the summer, it will be 175 years since.

Today, 2023, there are perhaps two variants of feminism that primarily dominate in our society. One variant is the modern variant of liberal feminism, which is based on good upbringing, a good education, and a long-term change of values. Within liberal feminism, one believes in the individual's free will to make deliberate choices and that the state should create conditions, not coercive measures.

The second variant is radical feminism, which is also the variant that perhaps dominates the media debate today. It is also the variant of feminism that the previous government explicitly stated they had based themselves on when, after the 2014 election, they announced that they were the world's first feminist government.

The word radical comes from the Latin radix and means root, that is, to go to the bottom of something and change it.

For many people, feminism has moved from what it is supposed to be, a struggle for equal conditions for everyone regardless of gender, to almost being a pejorative to describe individuals on the far left with an extremely radical agenda.

In the same rhythm as feminism is less and less about equal rights and opportunities, more and more individuals have also distanced themselves from defining themselves as feminists, this being because they do not want to be associated with the radical feminist agenda.

This radical feminism emerged during the 1960s and argues that patriarchal structures are so deeply rooted in society that everything, our entire society, needs to be reformed fundamentally and that all oppression is interconnected - inequality between genders, inequality between classes and in some cases that ethnicity is closely linked - and that everything should be abolished through socialist struggle and socialist revolution.

To concretize these two variants of feminism, one can refer to the so-called EO model, or the equality paradox. EO is an abbreviation of the English equal opportunity and equal outcome. Translated freely into Swedish: equal opportunities and equal outcomes.

On the liberal feminist side, equality is measured through equal opportunity, that is to say, equal conditions. And on the radical feminist side, equality is measured through equal outcome, that is to say, through equal outcomes.

A concrete example is the view on the parental leave, where on the radical side it is considered equal only when women and men are at home with their children in exactly the same extent - 50-50. At the same time, on the liberal side it is considered equal when women and men have exactly equivalent conditions and opportunities to choose completely freely and make decisions themselves regarding their children.

I therefore want to take the opportunity to highlight the upcoming reform in the parental leave from the government and the Sverigedemokraterna regarding the so-called double double-days, where mothers and fathers now get more days together with the newborn child.

The number of days when both parents can be at home simultaneously is doubled from 30 to 60 days, and at the same time, we extend the period for taking the days from today's one year to 15 months. And it is up to the families themselves if and how they want to use the days or not. The goal of the reform is that mothers and fathers should be able to make family and work life go together better.

We have come a long way, but in 2022, mothers still accounted for 70 percent of all taken parental leave days.

A study from 2019 shows that the "double days" (dubbeldagarna) have positive effects, partly on mothers' health, and partly in that they contribute to increased equality on a voluntary basis with an increased presence of both parents in the home. According to the study, the double days mean that men take their parental leave earlier, and thus the distribution when the child is small becomes somewhat more equal. The fathers who usually do not take any parental leave have, thanks to the double days, started doing so. This applies, for example, to fathers with lower incomes, with lower education, with a foreign background, or fathers in cohabiting relationships. The double days have shown to be a successful way to increase equality, give children greater access to both parents, and at the same time respect the freedom of choice within each family.

Madam Speaker! It is sometimes said that certain parties would be against equality. But I believe one should be very careful with this type of statement. I am firmly convinced that all parties in this chamber share two fundamental views:

Firstly, that women and men shall have the same rights, the same conditions and the same opportunities to shape their own lives.

Secondly, that women and men do not, in practice, have the same rights, conditions and opportunities to shape their own lives.

However, we have completely different views on how we should address this. Since the autumn of 2022, we have had a new government governing the country with the help of the Sweden Democrats - a paradigm shift. And large parts of this shift can actually be found in the Tidö Agreement.

In the area of equality, initiatives are now being made in light of today's problems in the form of increased penalties - much has already been said about this - that support for the vulnerable is improved and that the authorities' work is made more efficient. An investigation is underway regarding stricter laws concerning innocence checks, operations, and forced marriage trips. A review of the restraining order is taking place, improved conditions to break free from economic violence, removal of ceilings and volume discounts in the legislation, and so on.

Men's violence against women, violence in close relationships, and honor-related violence and oppression are three cousins within the worst expressions of inequality. And as is known, it also stands in the Tidö Agreement that cousin marriage is now to be prohibited.

Every year, several women are murdered by their current or former partners. And this year, it unfortunately looks like a record will be broken, as we have already reached a double-digit number in April. To this are added all men who suffer in their relationships with women or in same-sex relationships, and all children who suffer because of violent parents. The government has a stated ambition that the violence shall cease, which is expressed in the sixth of the gender equality sub-goals. The ambition is both good and much-needed. But more needs to be done to put an end to the violence.

One step in the right direction is precisely the establishment of a zero vision, which we have already discussed to some extent. A zero vision as an explicit goal would even more clearly demonstrate the seriousness of the issue. No one should ever have to doubt whether society truly prioritizes this issue and devotes the greatest possible attention to it. The people who are subjected to violence must be sure that society stands on their side and that the perpetrator will be punished. An explicit zero vision contributes to the work of continuing to be at the forefront when it comes to equality and serves as a reminder that we can never ever take it for granted. It is therefore very pleasing that the government now adopts the Sweden Democrats' policy in this area and, with this report, adopts a zero tolerance towards violence in close relationships.

Madam Speaker! Sverigedemokraternas reservation 11 contains three proposals.

Firstly: All forms of quotas and positive discrimination based on gender should be phased out within the framework of public activities. In addition to the fact that all so-called positive discrimination of one group is simultaneously negative discrimination of another group, such treatment reinforces the view of people as representatives of a group rather than representatives of themselves. I myself, as a modern liberal feminist, believe in creating equal conditions for women and men and the right person in the right place. The structural barriers that exist, we do not address by forcing through solutions but through improved conditions, education, upbringing, and shifts in norms.

Secondly, the principle of equal pay for equal work must be a self-evident matter. That it occurs at all that people in the country receive a lower salary than they are actually entitled to solely based on their gender is completely unacceptable, and it is therefore positive that annual pay audits have been reintroduced. The effects of these pay audits need to be regularly evaluated to ensure maximum and desired effect.

Thirdly, there is clear evidence showing that the agricultural industry is heavily male-dominated, but there is a significant lack of knowledge as to why. We believe that this needs to be investigated.

I wish to move for approval of the Sverigedemokraternas reservation number 11, and otherwise I support the committee's proposal for a decision.

In conclusion, had I been a radical feminist, I could have stated that this debate is anything but equal since we have eight speakers on the list and I am the only man. But because I am a modern liberal feminist, I consider that gender is not particularly important, and I assume that every party has placed the right person in the right position.

(Applause)

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

Sofia Amloh (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member, for the speech and the extensive journey through history we were allowed to witness!

It may not fit in right now, but I may have reason to return to the question of double days and parental leave in some other type of debate.

I think it is appropriate to dwell a little here on what I took up in my own speech. When it comes to men's violence against women, we Social Democrats believe that it should have exactly the same priority as gang crime and men's violence against men. It is therefore about what happens out on the open street versus the violence that occurs against women in the home – these issues should be completely equal. We do not see this in the Tidö Agreement at all. Does men's violence against women have the same priority for you in the Sverigedemokraterna? And how would this, in that case, look for you?

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

Michael Rubbestad (SD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Sofia Amloh, for the question! Yes, I think it is quite obvious that this has the same priority; it has extremely high priority. It has been very clear in the debate here in the chamber today that there probably isn't a single party that does not think that men's violence against women, violence in close relationships, and honor-related violence and oppression should have the highest possible priority. I know that the government is currently working on the 99-point program and the long-term plan - I believe that is very clear. We have also touched upon the fact that a number of different sentencing increases are underway. It is about the preventive work. I also note that several parties have raised the issue of post-violence, and I believe that is also a self-evident part of the long-term work within the various programs.

It is difficult for me to say here exactly what priority such a program has – whether it is number 1 or 47 on some kind of list. But I can assure the member that the starting point from the Sweden Democrats and the other parties in the Tidö cooperation, when we have discussed this, has been that it should have the highest possible priority.

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

Sofia Amloh (S)

Madam Speaker! It is only a pity that this is not visible in the actual agreements you have entered into with each other regarding what is to be implemented - it concerns whatever political ambition exists, resources and so on.

In a previous exchange, it was pointed out that the starting point in the committee during the processing of the motion report has been that there should be a zero vision when it comes to men's violence against women. It was my understanding that this was also the Sweden Democrats' starting point in this. Now we are left with an outcome that means we blur out this structural problem and neglect that it is men who are the perpetrators of violence and whom we should direct the measures towards. Why have the Sweden Democrats not stuck to their own motion and ambition regarding this?

Then I cannot help but ask – the member is welcome to answer, if there is time – why one is so opposed to quotas and positive discrimination. Is it a political red rag? Could it turn out that this means, which it is anyway, to reach a goal, is still conceivable to have with one just to reach a goal, or is the means completely inconceivable for the Sverigedemokraterna?

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

Michael Rubbestad (SD)

Madam Speaker! I would like to once again thank the member for the questions. I know it was said earlier in the debate that the word equality is not mentioned particularly much in the Tidö Agreement, but when one reads the agreement, I think it is very clear what is intended. We perhaps cannot just look at a piece of paper and see how many times a specific word is mentioned and count purely quantitatively, but it is still about the content. I perceive that the government, together with the Sweden Democrats, is taking many very important steps to increase equality, and I mean that the actions must be more important than a word on a piece of paper. It is the outcome itself that we should look at.

When it comes to violence against women and zero tolerance, there are now two proposals that are content-wise actually almost identical. On the other hand, we are discussing the heading. Should it be zero tolerance for violence against women or for violence in close relationships? I think it is a pity that we are focusing on the wrong thing, because in some sense we agree on the content. We should be standing here and discussing how we should address the problem, not what the heading on a document should be.

That the heading says "violence in close relationships" changes nothing, as said, when it comes to the content. Everyone knows that it is men's violence against women that is the biggest problem – I believe it constitutes 94 or 95 percent of the violence. But I have also met organizations that take care of men who are victims of violence. It is a recurring problem that they do not feel seen and are met with mistrust when they seek help. They get the feeling that everyone knows it is men who subject women to violence.

I believe that the work will be just as clear regardless of the heading. The greatest focus will be on men's violence against women. But the heading is a clear signal that all violence is equally bad. The Government and the Sweden Democrats will fight just as hard regardless of who is being subjected to it.

Unfortunately, I do not have time to answer the question on quotas - I ask to be allowed to return to it.

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

Ciczie Weidby (V)

Madam Speaker! Thank you very much, Michael Rubbestad, for the fantastic description of women's history! It was very interesting to hear. I only have a small clarification. The only radical thing about radical feminism and radical feminists is that we have an idea that both men and women are human beings and should have the same opportunities and rights. That is the only radical thing about feminism.

I have several questions and will try to group them together in a good way. Michael Rubbestad talks about freedom of choice and that men and women should be able to decide for themselves regarding their parental leave. That is very nice. How is it then that women always choose to be the ones who stay at home and also always get a lower salary, a worse salary development, and a worse pension? It is so interesting that this freedom of choice always means that women get the worse end of it.

The chairman did not answer the question on quotas. I wonder if Michael Rubbestad would like to talk a little bit about being so opposed to it. We know about the invisible quotas – all the men in all the sauna clubs who always see all men as suitable for different roles, but not women in the same way. That is why we want to introduce it. Michael Rubbestad is now very welcome to elaborate on this.

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

Michael Rubbestad (SD)

Madam Speaker! It was nice that Ciczie Weidby appreciated my historiography. I believe, however, that Ciczie Weidby has an even better grasp of feminist history than I do. She did not say, at least, that I had said anything that was wrong, so that was good.

That women and men are human beings and are equally worthy is the basis for feminism in general, I would say. One should keep radical feminism and extreme feminism separate, for they are two completely different things - the one is even further out, so to speak. I would not say at all that the two are the same thing.

I will move quickly on quotas, because unfortunately we are short on time.

When one uses quotas - that is, positive discrimination - it automatically implies negative discrimination against another group, and I do not believe that it can ever be right. Imagine if we were to use quotas in preschool, where we have 96 percent female staff and 4 percent male. I would very much like to see more men in preschool; I believe it would be very important for the work on gender equality. But to force out all women to get close to 50 percent men or to reach the 4060 goal, I believe is the wrong way to go.

We shall work with prerequisites and create opportunities. If we now see that there is an obstacle, for example that there are so many women working in preschools and that there are so many women who choose to stay at home, we shall in no way force anything. We shall instead try to find out what is the reason for this and how we can create prerequisites for people to make free choices and choose something else.

It can, for example, be about creating digital instruments. When one transfers parental days to one's partner, it has long-term economic consequences in life in the form of the pension. I do not think that one is always aware of these long-term consequences, but if one receives information about the whole thing from the very beginning, one can make a well-considered choice. We shall never decide how one should choose, but we shall create the conditions so that one can make a thoughtful and wise choice.

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

Ciczie Weidby (V)

Madam Speaker! This matter of quotas, positive discrimination, and the desire to make a change is nothing new – it is not something that has only existed now. We who were born in the 70s and applied to upper secondary school in the late 80s or early 90s know that a man who wanted to apply to, for example, the childcare line or a care program had to add a bit to his grade in order to more easily be able to get in. Likewise was it when women applied to upper secondary lines, as it was called in the Stone Age.

One wanted to address this. There was a will and an idea. It was not that men were forced away from traditional male occupations or that women were forced away from becoming childcare workers or preschool teachers; we see this, at least now. It could, however, open up to provide an opportunity and show alternatives. It is strange that it is used in this way, as if it were coercive when one is trying to find a solution to increase diversity. That is not the case.

Women apparently always choose lower wages than men have. Michael Rubbestad is welcome to state what measures exist to achieve more equal wages, so that women and men in a workplace earn as much. As it is now, a man and a woman who have started at the same time and are of the same age can walk side by side in the same job, and yet the woman very often has a lower wage. How are we to deal with this?

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

Michael Rubbestad (SD)

Madam Speaker! I will begin with that which concerns quotas. I intend to take an example from my home municipality, and it concerns the Social Democrats.

In my home municipality, there is a male politician who is very competent; I have known him and had a dialogue with him for many years. He is a white, middle-aged, and heterosexual man and one of their absolute top candidates. Does Ciczie Weidby think that he got a good place on the ballot, or was it that one chose to move him down because one wanted to leave room for women, younger women, women with foreign backgrounds, persons with other sexual orientations, and so on?

The result was that he could hardly be elected to the municipal council given the fact that he is a white heterosexual man. I think that is very sad. Somewhere, it must be the competence that decides; it must still be this that is the most important. Now the Social Democrats received quite a few mandates, so it worked out in any case, but it could just as easily have gone in another direction.

The members of the committee asked about economic equality. I have already touched upon the digital instruments to make visible the economic effect of people's choices. I also believe that improved occupational health care is needed in the female-dominated occupations. Unfortunately, the female-dominated occupations are significantly neglected, so we need to take measures to make them more attractive and improve them for the women who already work there.

The wage difference is approximately 4.5 percent. I believe Svensk Handel has stated that the difference is 4.4 percent, but it is not that precise. One does not really know why, so it is absolutely necessary that we do something to investigate this and do something about it – there, the member and I are in complete agreement.

I would also like to say something about strengthened economic conditions during and after separation and division of property. Unfortunately, two minutes of speaking time is not enough, but the member and I can have a coffee sometime and talk about it.

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

Camilla Mårtensen (L)

Madam Speaker! In theory, Sweden is one of the world's most equal countries, but in the reality of Sweden 2023, a woman is still murdered every third week by a man with whom she has a close relationship.

Women still control over 1 percent of the venture capital that exists, and barely 30 percent of Sweden's entrepreneurs are women.

Only a meager quarter of the parental leave is still taken by men.

It is still the norm that it is the woman who goes down to part-time if it is necessary to manage the years as parents of small children.

It is still primarily women who, after a long working life, receive a small pension and are forced to live under meager conditions.

LGBTQ people are still met with prejudice and a tone in the debate that is both hurtful and frightening.

I was for many years chairman of the education committee in the Scania municipality of Kävlinge and observed that the girls performed better than the boys in all subjects. Even the sports subject, which was the last bastion for the boys, fell a few years ago. This is an inequality that follows up into higher education. There are more women who have a completed college or university degree. Nevertheless, it is men who have the best incomes and the highest positions in society.

Somewhere when childbirth comes into the picture, equality is blurred. We need to think anew when it comes to our parental leave. I want a parental leave that is equal, provides freedom of choice, and encourages work. The parental leave should be more flexible and provide better opportunities to choose between a shorter leave with full compensation and a longer period with lower compensation. The compensation for childcare should be raised so that it does not always automatically become the one with the lowest income who stays home in February.

Of course, we must have an insurance that fits all types of relationships – divorced parents, rainbow families, and completely other ways of living. It must become easier to leave days off for a new partner or a close relative.

When the child supplement was introduced in 1982, it had an important distributive policy significance. Today, however, it has become a woman trap. It hinders integration and worsens many women's opportunities to learn the Swedish language and enter gainful employment. To break the negative development, we need to review our benefit systems and remove the child supplement.

Women run service companies, and men run construction companies. Men run large companies, and women run small companies – mostly without employees. Furthermore, the proportion is falling, as the political debate gets stuck on profits in welfare in the sectors that women dominate. Those of us who truly safeguard women's empowerment do not put spokes in the wheels of women's entrepreneurship and women's right to live out their dreams.

Madam Speaker! Johan Hilton wrote in Göteborgs-Posten a few weeks ago that the public debate about trans people's lives and existence is beginning to resemble a mass psychosis that we all too well recognize from the discussions about homosexuality a few decades ago. In Brå's latest compilation of hate crimes, there are almost 500 reports of crimes with hate motives against hbtqi people. Of these, 18 percent are transphobic.

Let us not forget that many voices are silenced and dreams are crushed because one lives in a context where gender-crossing expressions are still not accepted by society or the family. Incredibly important are the men and women who dare to go before and publicly show how they choose to live their lives. It gives hope to a boy in Perstorp or a girl in Rosengård when brave ones go before and show the way and that there is a possibility to live one's best life.

Economic freedom is important. But those questions become secondary when one does not have their basic security, because there is nothing that limits a person's freedom as much as violence. Therefore, violence against women is not just an equality issue but also a democracy issue.

To address men's violence against women, we must work on several levels, because men must stop hitting. It is unworthy that women and children should have to hide because men threaten them to life and rob them of their freedom. I am pleased that concrete proposals and measures to stop the violence are finally being presented.

The most important thing to reach the violence is the preventive work: the blow that is never delivered, the psychological terror that never occurs, and the persecution that never happens. Already in preschool, we must be attentive to gender-stereotypical patterns, and in school, there must be discussions about machoculture and gender roles.

When the first blow is struck, the justice system must take over and impose harsh penalties on the perpetrator.

Equality Minister Brandberg's focus on violence in young relationships can truly change the conditions for all those women who encounter a man with a history of violence who carries it forward from one relationship to another.

Every three weeks, a woman is killed by a man in Sweden. Almost always, she has sought help. When the Minister for Equality visited the committee last week, she spoke about the government's efforts in the area, for example, joint agency assignments, for which Minister Brandberg noted that we can no longer work in silos. Violence against women is an issue for all institutions and all citizens. I also welcome the focus that exists on vulnerability to violence and perpetrators of violence among persons with disabilities.

I am proud that Sweden has come this far. It has been a hard-fought struggle, driven by previous generations of women's rights activists and feminists. Today, the responsibility rests on us. Women and girls still live with fear of violence. We still have an unequal labor market and poorer economic conditions in retirement.

When we no longer need to stand in the chamber and discuss violence against women, when the gender pay gap can no longer be recorded, and when everyone, regardless of where they grew up, can live their best life, only then shall we fall silent.

(Applause)

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

Sofia Amloh (S)

Madam Speaker! I thank the member for the speech and, above all, the closing words "only then shall we fall silent." I know that Social Democrats and Liberals have historically, many times, been able to be proud together of the great breakthroughs that have been made.

But we still have one of our greatest societal problems remaining, perhaps the very symbol of that we have not reached the goals of gender equality policy: that women are being murdered because they are women. This is completely unacceptable on so many levels, which I believe everyone in the chamber agrees on. So far, today's debate has been about this structural, systematic societal problem: men's violence against women. I wish we could talk about something else, but this is the raw reality.

There are action programs, 99-point programs, and strategies against men's violence against women. Today, decisions are to be made regarding a zero vision. Why are we breaking the consistent line? Why do we not persist in that there should be a zero vision for men's violence against women? Why are we blurring this? Why do the Liberals choose to back down? You have never done it before, but now you are backing down on the issue of men's violence against women.

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

Camilla Mårtensen (L)

Madam Speaker! I thank Member Amloh.

I do not believe that we are backing down. As I said in my speech, men's violence against women is not only an equality issue but also a democracy issue that must be embraced by more. Previous speakers have noted that we are seven women and one man debating here today. This must be broadened.

I share Sofia Amloh's and others' view that structural violence against women in close relationships is our great challenge and that we must work preventatively here. This does not exclude that we see violence in same-sex relationships as a concern and a major limitation for people living in same-sex relationships. However, it should in no way be interpreted as us scaling back ambitions regarding the structural conditions for women who are subjected to violence in close relationships.

Minister Brandberg was clear about this in his report to the committee last week and that clear steps forward are being taken in the preventive work.

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

Sofia Amloh (S)

Madam Speaker! I take over from where the member left off. It was a good presentation by the Minister to the committee, but I still became concerned. The preventive work did not appear in the first, second, or third room; only after a series of questions was there talk about being able to leave the relationship in time and the school's role in this. When it came to incorporating gender research as a basis for being able to break norms, the Minister was not clear at all, and that made me concerned. I truly hope that I am wrong, but I became, as I said, concerned.

Just as we say, men's violence against women is a structural violence. Why can't we just deal with it? We have a sub-goal that concerns exactly men's violence against women. It is just as bad with violence within same-sex relations - or other violence. We are against violence regardless of form; I believe everyone can sign off on that.

But if we are to address a societal problem, we need to clarify what the structural problem is, and here in the chamber, we agree that it is men's violence against women. Why then not adopt a zero vision against just this and hold out consistently all the way, not change, and not back down? We are going to vote on this this afternoon, and it is possible to change one's mind.

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

Camilla Mårtensen (L)

Madam Speaker! I can then reassure Sofia Amloh that she did not hear correctly when she was at the committee.

We, or Minister Brandberg, spoke quite a lot about preventive work. Among other things, she mentioned the project that has been initiated and is called Svartsjuka är inte romantiskt, which targets young people. Because one does not start hitting when they turn 40, but there are often already in early adolescence signs that indicate gender-stereotypical macho cultures and the like. If we are truly to be able to change this, we cannot change a relationship, but we must change the perpetrators, and that is done through early preventive work.

We have also introduced discussions, or legislation, both in the Education Act and regarding curricula on how to address honor violence and how to discuss consent. I think that is an absolutely excellent preventive work. Minister Brandberg also spoke about how a mandate has been given to various agencies to cooperate in order to detect violence early. It is not only the Gender Equality Authority that is to work with this, but also the Public Employment Service, healthcare, and schools. The agencies have been given a common goal so that they shall work on this together. So I want to assert that the member did not listen properly when it comes to the preventive work.

When it comes to the other matter, how we choose to label violence, we share the same opinion. We believe that it is the structural violence against women that is the predominant problem. But we also want to highlight this, because it is not just a gender equality issue. It is also a democracy problem, and more must be invited into the debate. Even there, the member is absolutely right. It is only when this is discussed around the kitchen table that one gets a change, and then more must be included.

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

Helena Vilhelmsson (C)

Madam Speaker! I thank Camilla Mårtensen for an excellent speech! I am particularly pleased with all the points regarding women's economy and women's entrepreneurship. I hope that we can really make a difference during the upcoming mandate period, even though I actually think that investments in women's economy and women's entrepreneurship are conspicuously absent in the Tidö Agreement. But that doesn't mean that one cannot work on it, in any case.

I want to return to the question of men's violence against women - the eternal pandemic. We have talked a lot about the preventive work, which is very important. That, too, of course, extends across many policy areas and many committees here in the chamber. One issue that actually lies with us in the Committee on Employment, which the member has also mentioned several times, is the support for Ungarelationer.se. Violence does not start completely suddenly when one is in a relationship, but it comes from somewhere. It comes from norms and values, from films and from pornography, the violent pornography. This is what Ungarelationer.se has worked on in a completely fantastic way during the approximately four years they have existed.

But the fact is that I do not remember such a clear answer from the Minister for Equality during the visit to the committee as the member may be doing. I thought that the minister was beating around the bush when it came to the funding for Ungarelationer.se. They received an increased and stable grant as part of the January agreement, in which both the Liberals and the Center Party were involved, but now their finances are actually threatened. Therefore, I wonder how the member views the activities of Ungarelationer.se and whether the member, the government, and the Liberals are on board to truly secure their future.

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

Camilla Mårtensen (L)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member Vilhelmsson! I note that you and I think very similarly on these issues. We have done that many times, and we have different ways of getting our point across.

I still have to comment on what was said about that which is missing from the Tidö Agreement. There is very much that is missing from the Tidö Agreement. There are seven policy areas where an agreement has been reached. I think the members, not just member Vilhelmsson but also other members in the committee, should look at the government statement. Those issues are raised there, and it is the government's policy.

When it comes to Ungarelationer.se and the work that is to be done there, I have full confidence that the Minister has focus on this. She has extensive personal experience of how to work with these issues, and she also pointed out in the committee that it is important. On the other hand, I am indebted for the answer when it comes to what the funding for Ungarelationer.se looks like. I cannot [answer that]. I am not briefed on that. But I will, of course, continue to monitor the issue, because I think just like the member that they are doing a great job and that they are an important player.

In this speech, Camilla Rinaldo Miller (KD) agreed.

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

Helena Vilhelmsson (C)

Madam Speaker! I mentioned in my previous reply that things can be done even if they are not in the Tidö Agreement. And indeed, it is stated regarding this in the government statement, so in that regard, the member is correct.

When it comes to Ungarelationer.se, it is a fantastic operation. They have millions of conversations from young people. They have a website that is absolutely incredible and which has amounts of visits. They present an incredible amount of material. I will never forget when I first heard what the most common question to them was. It was young women who asked: Do you have to agree to strangulation sex? It hit. It hit in the stomach.

It is very sad that the grant is actually being significantly reduced - from 10 million to like 2 million that the Gender Equality Authority has to distribute in this area, if I have read correctly. I really hope that the member can help investigate the issue and ensure that this is changed before we make decisions on the supplementary budget, because it is a serious problem for the future of Ungarelationer.se.

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

Camilla Mårtensen (L)

Madam Speaker! I thank the member for the prompt! I will, of course, look into it and get back to you.

(THIRD DEPUTY SPEAKER: I remind again of the difficult question of speaking via the Speaker. If you speak to me, it may be easier.)

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

Ciczie Weidby (V)

Madam Speaker! I shall truly speak through you!

The Speaker must surely think it is very tedious that the opposition stands up and talks about men's violence against women, men's violence in general, who hits whom and so on. But this is a very large and important issue in our committee and something that we have discussed very much, and that is why we, member after member, stand up and take replies.

I want to start by saying that liberals and socialists have historically walked side by side when it comes to the struggle for all people's equal rights and opportunities. It would not have been possible if socialists and liberals had not, in different arenas and in different ways, ensured that we received women's suffrage and, above all, rights for people who cannot always take the same place or have the same opportunity in society.

That is why it is so sad to see that the Liberals have now allied themselves with right-wing conservative forces instead of with the liberal and socialist ideas of how we view different power relations, who structurally has more or less power than others, and what different solutions we see. Therefore, we shall rise time and again and one after another to take replies, Madam Speaker.

I would very much like to know how it is that Camilla Mårtensen and Liberalerna no longer want to be with us others.

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

Camilla Mårtensen (L)

Madam Speaker! I thank Member Weidby!

We have not changed our policy. I am still standing here and talking about the most important thing - I suspect you were referring to the structural violence against women, even though you did not say it - but it is not a contradiction to also talk about violence in same-sex relations.

When it comes to other things, it is about us feeling that we can push through some economic policy and some justice policy and a focus on the school that we want. It is a package, and therefore we are here today together with the other bourgeois in the government. But you are absolutely right: We are the bourgeois left, and we will continue to drive these issues. We were needed in such a government.

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

Ciczie Weidby (V)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Camilla Mårtensen, for the answers! At the end, Camilla Mårtensen tried to say a little about what different types of measures one can take to address this. When the Minister visited the committee, she described, as we heard earlier, different types of measures only after we others had pushed a little.

The various things that the Minister presented were not new things that the Tidökamraterna had come up with, but very much the policy that has been pursued by previous governments. The work that is ongoing at agencies, municipalities, and so on around the country is not something that has been started thanks to this government.

If, for example, it were the case that one was not quite satisfied with the work that has been done previously – one can, of course, have other opinions and ideas about what one believes is the major key issue to address men's violence against women, all violence against all men and women, or however one chooses to formulate it – we actually did not hear about any specific new measures. I therefore give Camilla Mårtensen the opportunity in her final reply to give us her best measures in those issues.

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

Camilla Mårtensen (L)

Madam Speaker! The member is absolutely right. The previous government had a 99-point program in the January agreement. 95 points are completed today. It is because we here in the chamber, all eight parties, have this as a priority. It provides strength. Obviously, it is a strength that the decisions that have been made shall be implemented. But both I and the member can indeed observe that it is not enough.

If we do more of the same thing, we will also get the same results. We must dare to think anew. We must dare to take new approaches. We must dare to challenge and invite more people to the debates. It cannot just be a matter for us here in the chamber. This debate must be conducted more broadly.

I share the Left's views on many of these issues. I share them, just as I share the Sweden Democrats' views on many of these issues. My answer to the member is that when Minister Brandberg visited the committee, she described that the 99-point program is being completed - there are five points left - and that one must now start looking forward again and think about what should be done. There, I hope that all eight parties will actually come forward with good input and good proposals.

We Liberals have quite a few measures on our list. One only has to go in and look at previous debate items. We will, of course, fight to get those measures through.

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

Ciczie Weidby (V)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you very much for the floor! There has been a long debate regarding the report concerning motions on equality and measures against discrimination. I will begin by speaking about equality.

The Women's Empowerment Inquiry was commissioned by the government in 1995, and it presented 13 research reports during the late 90s. In 1998, the final report was published, titled Ty makten är din - myten om det ratio nella arbetslivet och det jämställda Sverige.

The Women's Empowerment Inquiry concluded, among other things, that education pays off less for women than for men and that occupational groups with female dominance have lower wages than occupational groups with male dominance. Women lose in wage development when they have children, but the men who take their parenthood seriously and are stay-at-home fathers actually lose even more. Even those women who never have children or have passed the childbearing ages have to pay some kind of "woman tax" in the form of lower wages and poorer career opportunities. A woman who divorces from a man loses financially, while the man loses contact with the children.

The investigation further states that the public sector can be seen as more women-friendly in some respects than the private sector, but in other respects, women are exploited. The many part-time jobs and temporary employments mean that women are exploited and left with poor wages and development conditions and very poor pensions, this despite the fact that the public sector is politically governed and the management should know better.

Mr. Speaker! In summary, the Women's Empowerment Inquiry shows a picture of a far from equal Sweden, and over 20 years later we can state that many of the problems that the Women's Empowerment Inquiry addresses still exist and in some cases have even worsened. Vänsterpartiet has, for example, repeatedly highlighted the structural discrimination in the labor market. The question of equality between women and men is largely a matter of economic policy, because it is precisely resources that are absolutely crucial for reducing injustices.

Mr. Speaker! It is not reasonable that women should be dependent on men for their livelihood. That a woman can support herself is, for example, necessary so that she can be able to leave a man who abuses her. We in the Left Party believe that women and men should, of course, have equal pay for equal work, and we want that everyone who wants to work full-time should also have the right to work full-time. Today, as has been said, many women work part-time because they are simply never offered a full-time position.

The pension system also reinforces the gender inequalities that exist in the labor market. Women have on average approximately 70 percent of men's pension, and the difference increases with age. Half of all women are forced to take out a guaranteed pension just to get by. The system does not compensate for parental leave and sick pay days in a satisfactory way. In the current pension system, an ever-increasing proportion of future pensioners, especially women, risk becoming poor.

In view of this, I move for the approval of reservation number 1, which means that Vänsterpartiet considers that the government should appoint a new women's power inquiry in order to address the lack of equality.

Mr. Speaker! This is also a report on discrimination. Therefore, I would like to mention a few things concerning that. Increased accessibility makes society better by giving more people the opportunity to participate in society and live an independent life.

In 2015, lack of accessibility for persons with disabilities became a form of discrimination according to the law. Vänsterpartiet considers that the new anti-discrimination legislation was a step forward in the issue of human rights, but unfortunately, the legislation contains several crucial exceptions compared to the proposals in the underlying investigation.

The government has announced that the law on inaccessibility as a ground for discrimination is to be reviewed and broadened. In 2017, a bill was submitted regarding expanded protection against discrimination in the form of lack of accessibility, which proposed that the current exemption for companies with fewer than ten employees should be removed. Vänsterpartiet welcomed that proposal.

As part of broadening the anti-discrimination legislation, an evaluation should be carried out to review how the legislation has functioned. It is extremely important that the good intentions from the government's side are also fulfilled in practice.

Mr. Speaker! Adding language as a ground for discrimination is something that has been requested by both minority organizations in Sweden and the Council of Europe's expert committee, which monitors the rights of national minorities in the member states. This has been done following high-profile cases where Swedish-Finns have been forbidden from speaking Finnish in school or at the workplace. Unlike the committee, which seems to mean that the protection is sufficiently strong, I and the Vänsterpartiet believe that an inquiry should be appointed with a mandate to review whether language should nevertheless also be introduced into the Discrimination Act as a ground for discrimination.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, one must measure and ask in order to even know if there is any discrimination. The simplest means is to use equality data. This is information on how different grounds for discrimination, for example religion, skin color or ethnicity, are distributed in the population and how they interact with one another. Sweden is regularly criticized by the UN, the EU and the Council of Europe for not collecting relevant knowledge and systematic statistics on the situation of different minorities.

Segregation and inequality are most evident in relation to the grounds of discrimination of ethnic origin, national origin or skin color as well as religion and other belief systems. When asking around, much indicates that a majority of the Swedish population is positive towards introducing equality data on a more systematic and institutionalized level. This applies in particular if one asks the minorities themselves.

The pressure on Sweden to establish equality data is growing strongly within, for example, RFSL, the Swedish Federation for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer and Intersex Rights. Disability organizations and many functional networks are requesting this, as are the Swedish-Finnish Federation and others. It concerns very many actors. Those who experience and see discrimination would like to make it visible.

Mr. Speaker! It is not enough to be the best in the class in only a rhetorical world, we must have protection and rights for all those minorities that we say exist on paper.

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

Helena Vilhelmsson (C)

Mr. Speaker! My speech will mostly be about violence against women by men, even though the committee report we are dealing with today also contains many other important issues.

I intend to start by reading out some newspaper headlines from the year so far:

Woman found dead in freezer - man detained

Suspected double murder in Luleå - man arrested

Woman in Halmstad deceased - police investigating suspected murder

Pregnant Soliana dead after fall from balcony

Woman dead in Örebro - man arrested for murder

Woman found dead in Luleå - man detained suspected of murder

Man arrested for murder and attempted murder of mother and daughter

Joullnar found dead in forest area - daughter tells

Woman found dead in residence in western Värmland

He is suspected of having murdered his mother.

With a few more that I did not mention, it became twelve murdered women in twelve weeks. All were suspected relationship crimes, i.e., women murdered by men they had or had had a relationship with.

Mr. Speaker! I wonder where the big headlines about the issue are in the media and online. I also wonder where the government's crisis plan for this is, because this is a crisis.

A few years ago, a number of women were also murdered in a short period of time. At that time, the then leader of the Center Party, Annie Lööf, demanded that the government call the party leaders to a crisis meeting to jointly try to put a stop to the violence. Some things changed, but it was obviously not enough. It is perhaps time for a new joint crisis meeting for all the parties in the Riksdag.

If twelve women in twelve weeks were not enough, we can continue into the thirteenth week:

Woman found dead in apartment in Falkenberg - investigation into murder or manslaughter

Woman found dead in caravan in Dalsland - suspected murder

Suspected murder in Fagersta

A man is suspected of murdering his wife in Falkenberg

Suspected murder - woman found dead in the forest outside Filipstad

Older man suspected of murder of woman in Ljusdal

This is a documentation of six murdered women in seven days. We are now up to almost twenty women, that is, the recent years' figure for the number of murders in a partner relationship, and it hasn't even been four months of 2023.

Where are the headlines about this? Where is the government's short-term reaction and where is the action plan? Consider that there would have been six murders in gang criminal circles in seven days! How do you think it would have looked then?

We know that the priorities are different. When an escape occurs from Kriminalvården's transports, proposals for measures from the government arrive immediately. But I have not seen any urgent measures from the government on the grounds that women are being murdered.

Mr. Speaker! I know that some of these cases are dismissed from being suspected crimes in a relationship, but that is no excuse for not raising the issue. The results are deterrent regardless.

The Center Party called the Minister for Equality to the committee some time ago to get information on the government's work against men's violence against women. I do not know if we became much wiser. A good deal is ongoing and in the works. These are investigations that deliver results in the long term. Primarily, it is about repressive measures, which is symptomatic of the entire Tidö Agreement.

It is certainly good because the penalties need to be tightened, but it is not done in a heartbeat. And the criminal justice measures reach far from all perpetrators of violence. A large part of all crimes are not reported and do not reach the court. For these perpetrators of violence, it does not matter how much we increase the penalties.

Preventive work is crucial for all forms of violence in close relationships, both in the short and long term. As has been said, the violence does not start completely suddenly when one is an adult and has a relationship, but it starts earlier.

I have previously mentioned that the support for Ungarelationer.se is in grave danger. I truly hope that the government can change its mind on the issue.

Mr. Speaker! As important as preventive measures are, it is also important to support women who want to leave a violent relationship. It is not something one does easily. Children, pets, housing, school and work - there are many factors that can keep the woman in a violent relationship. Therefore, there must be a collective support so that she dares to take the step.

The most dangerous period is precisely when a woman says she is going to leave her partner. That is when the murders occur. Still, there is no unified exit program and no structured support for women today.

Mr. Speaker! Isn't this a bit strange, especially considering that there are programs for men who are leaving criminal gang activity? In fact, the Gender Equality Authority, in its recently submitted report, states the following:

A person who wants to quit the criminal life is offered an 18-month long treatment program, commissioned and funded by the social services. This is followed by two years of aftercare and follow-up, which is free of charge for the municipality. During the first year, there is support around the clock and it includes interventions regarding housing, therapy, drug addiction, employment, debt restructuring, and leisure activities. This is followed by a six-month long discharge program so that the client becomes more self-sufficient.

The Gender Equality Authority can state that the difference in measures and resources compared to women and children exposed to violence who live with protected personal data is palpable. Not least the importance of a coordinating actor becomes clear, so that persons living with protected personal data shall receive the best possible support and protection.

A woman who manages to leave a violent relationship is offered, at best, a place in a shelter at a women's shelter for a period of time, and in the worst case, a protected identity. She is then left alone with the responsibility for moving, housing, school changes, rent, as well as all other costs.

Centerpartiet has earlier this year proposed a national exit program containing structured support including a monthly financial support, commonly referred to as fuck off-capital - I apologize for the choice of words - as well as a national housing queue. These are proposals that can be launched in the relatively short term. My question is: What proposals does the government have to support women who want to get out of and leave a relationship early? Here I want to move for approval of reservation 5, which partly concerns an exit program.

I look forward to the other initiatives to counter post-violence and economic violence that have been mentioned by others in the rostrum. The most contributing factor when it comes to post-violence is the eternal disputes over custody, housing, and visitation with common children. Here, the Gender Equality Authority has issued a report stating that courts, when they rule in cases regarding custody, housing, and visitation, do not take into account that violence has occurred in the relationship or that a risk of violence may exist.

Since it is now a crime when a parent assaults the other parent in the presence of children, the courts are therefore sentencing crime victims to be forced to spend time with their perpetrators. Women are sentenced to leave the children with the perpetrator, and the children are forced into contact with a violent father. Which other crime victims do we force into something such as that?

Mr. Speaker! We have seen the worst consequences of this, namely that children have been murdered by a parent and that children have been forced into contact with a parent who has murdered the other parent. I ask again: What is the government doing in this matter? I have not received any clear answers from representatives of the government parties. If I have understood the whole thing correctly, there are no proposals from the government parties that embrace this issue.

Tonight, as we have said, we decide here in the chamber on a proposal that implies that one should automatically lose custody if one murders the other parent. Will you vote for that proposal, the Tidö parties, or will you come with other proposals? A first step could be that the government calls for a conversation with all parties to stop men's violence against women with joint forces. It is time now.

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

Camilla Rinaldo Miller (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Helena Vilhelmsson for a moving speech. We are in complete agreement that this is an area and an issue that leaves no one untouched. Since the member has on several occasions mentioned the government and what the member considers to be a lack of activity from the government, I would like to tell you a bit about some of what the government is doing.

On March 1, a mandate was given to Tillväxtverket to encourage women to start companies and to ensure that more women are able to do so. We see that women are lagging behind in that regard. I personally have the privilege of being a self-employed entrepreneur, so I belong to the positive part of that statistic. But we wish that there were many more. This mandate comes from the Ministry of Enterprise.

In a post on the government's website from March 24, we see that the Ministry of Social Affairs is now initiating the work on the new action plan against men's violence against women. The work is therefore already underway regarding that part of what has been discussed.

The Council of State was also involved in this regarding the handover program. I can assure you that this too will be investigated. It is nothing that the government simply leaves behind and does nothing about.

Furthermore, I would like to mention that the Ministry of Justice is now addressing the issue of men's violence against women and ensuring that there is increased protection for women who are subjected to violence in close relationships. It concerns restraining orders. It should be possible to expand the scope to protect the crime victim and make it more difficult for the perpetrator.

I want to ask the member: Do you think that violence against women or violence in close relationships is less important?

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

Helena Vilhelmsson (C)

Mr. Speaker! I thank you for the update. Some things were not entirely unfamiliar to me.

I am fully convinced that one of the most important issues is independence and economic freedom - to stand on one's own feet economically. This has also been mentioned here in the chamber by other members. It is the absolutely most important measure to stop men's violence against women.

I think it is terrible that women's entrepreneurship is decreasing. When the Alliance was in government, it was the opposite, it increased. I also think it is terrible that the venture capital for women's entrepreneurship is so vanishingly small.

I am pleased that the member says that they are looking into introducing a decommissioning program. That was actually new to me. The member is welcome to tell more about the thoughts surrounding it and where in the government it is being worked on.

The proposals that the member mentioned otherwise are good, but they may not have an effect in the short term. I think we must use all the forces we can to develop measures that can be put into effect quickly and immediately. Furthermore, what the member mentioned, apart from this matter regarding women's entrepreneurship, is largely about repressive measures. I also raised this in my main speech. It is not so much preventive measures.

I think the very best thing would be if we could have a joint discussion about this. It would also facilitate the work here. In that way, we might perhaps avoid these confusing discussions about whether it should be called one thing or the other. A gathering with all parties to address this would be the absolute best.

The Chairman must apologize - I actually did not quite catch the question that came at the end.

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

Camilla Rinaldo Miller (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Then I shall be so good as to begin with the question instead.

When we prepared this report in the committee, we wanted to reach an agreement also with the other parties and not just between the Liberals, Moderates, Christian Democrats and Sweden Democrats. We wanted everyone to come to the conclusion together that a zero vision and zero tolerance were needed for all violence in close relationships.

I was in my main argument that everyone must act. The government needs to act to prevent, but also municipalities, regions, and you and I as private individuals need to do it. We need to report when we see signals that show that violence in close relationships is likely occurring.

My question was whether the member still thinks that men's violence against women is much more serious than men's violence against other men and women's violence against other women, and if that is why you decline to stand behind a zero vision for all violence in close relationships.

I also want to emphasize that equality is truly about being able to make one's own life choices. I think it is important that women have the opportunity to stand on their own feet, have the economic means to support themselves, and be given the opportunity to start companies. As I said before, I myself am one of the lucky ones. With the government we have today, I know that this work will constantly continue to be driven forward.

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

Helena Vilhelmsson (C)

Mr. Speaker! Regarding the latter, I completely agree with the member. Again: Economic freedom is the absolute most important thing for an independent and democratic life. I am also an entrepreneur, so I know what it entails. I know what needs to be done, and I know what can be done.

When it comes to the question of the definition of and the reservation about the zero vision, I can tell you who have come to repeat that a large part of the debate has been about that.

I can repeat what I have said earlier. To remedy a problem, one must define it. I was very clear in my speech regarding what the problem is. The problem is that women are dying. There are a huge number of deaths. These are extremely large figures today compared to previously.

Well, it is a problem. Women die in relationships where men exercise violence. By not being very clear and defining just that problem, one softens it and hides it away.

I am a bit fascinated by the arguments I have heard here. It is shameful for men who live in violent relationships or are subjected to psychological violence, just as it is not for women.

It is exactly as if women are believed and have an easy path to action. That is, of course, not the case. It is just as problematic and just as shameful regardless of which relationship one lives in. But it is women who die.

My answer is: Yes, I think it is better to address the problem for real. That is done by talking about men's violence against women. All the measures we take to stop men's violence against women are also good for all other forms of relationships.

(Applause)

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

Janine Alm Ericson (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Miljöpartiet is a feminist party. This means that we want to work for equality and counteract the prevailing gender power structure in Sweden as well as in the world using political tools. It is the order that means that men have more power than women.

For Miljöpartiet, equality is fundamentally a question of freedom. People's opportunities to live their lives should not be affected or limited by gender or gender identity. Everyone should have the freedom to be who they are and shape their lives accordingly. Unfortunately, this is far from reality.

In the public debate, certain political forces like to present it as if feminism has gone too far. But nothing could be more wrong. In 2023, women are still being murdered in the home, and they have lower wages and worse working conditions than men. Examples of women and girls who have been assaulted and raped are almost endless. If anything, it shows that feminism needs to go much further.

Every three weeks, a woman is murdered by a man she is or has been in a relationship with. Every year, nearly 40,000 reports of assault and over 8,000 reports of rape against women and girls are made.

It is brutal figures that clearly describe a gigantic failure for us as a society. But they are also figures that speak their clear language. No matter how much we have done, we have not done enough.

We have still done a lot, however it may sound from the government parties today. During the Green Party's time in government, a consent legislation finally came into place. We made the obvious into law. Everything that is not a yes in sexual intercourse is a no. Everything that is not a yes is also punishable.

We have also improved the lowest pensions, which benefits women. We have raised the levels in the sickness and activity allowance and improved the sickness insurance. These are things that make a real difference in a weak economic situation.

We have also developed an action program to prevent and combat violence against women and filled it with reforms that shall both put a stop to the violence here and now and, in the long term, build a society free from violence in the future.

Mr. Speaker! I am proud of what the Green Party has achieved. But as I said earlier, it is truly far from enough. We need to do significantly more - yes, everything we can - so that no woman is beaten and no boy grows up to become a man who beats and rapes.

As much as we must put a stop to the violence that occurs on the street, we must also put a stop to that which occurs in the home. We must be the voice for those who scream when no one hears, for those who are deprived of their freedom, and for those who fight for the right to their own body. We must be the voice for every child who is forced into contact with a violent parent and for every woman who is forced to live in flight from the man she was once together with.

Mr. Speaker! On January 21, 2002, Fadime Sahindal was murdered by her own father. Now, it has been over twenty years since she was murdered. Our society has changed in many ways. But the violence and oppression exercised in the name of honor remains.

Every day, girls' and women's freedom is restricted. Every day, threats are uttered against someone because she wants to make decisions about her own life and not conform to the norms of the family and the kin. Every day it happens is one day too many.

In our society, there is no place for any form of honor-related violence or oppression. There is no place for the men who threaten, beat and control their sisters, children or wives. Here, the voice of society must be completely crystal clear: It is zero tolerance that applies, and we will never give in.

In recent years, we have taken several important steps to combat honor-related violence and oppression. But just as with the work against men's violence against women, it also requires increased resources. The municipalities' social services need to receive the resources required to both be able to work preventatively and to intervene with full force when there is a suspicion that someone is being subjected to it.

Mr. Speaker! Every year, in anticipation of International Women's Day, a point in time is presented from which women actually work for free. The movement Lön hela dagen highlights the wage gap between women and men, and over time it has decreased. It has happened very slowly, but it has still decreased.

It did not do so this year. For the first time, the clock ticked backwards. It is also a proof that we have a long way to go towards an equal labor market and towards women's economic freedom.

Just as equality in society does not come of itself, equality in the labor market will not either. Political reforms are required for equal pay for equal work to become a reality.

That is why we want to see significant investments in the working environment and wages in female-dominated occupations. Women who work hard all their lives in healthcare and care are worth so much more than applause. That is why we in Miljöpartiet have presented a package of almost 40 billion over four years that will give exactly those who work in healthcare and care higher wages, more colleagues, and a better working environment.

Women must be able to maintain a full working life and also enjoy their work. Since healthcare is one of the most important things we have as a society for us humans to feel safe, it is also time that we invest in it and in those who work there.

Equality work worthy of the name concerns the whole of society. There is not just a single instance that can take responsibility for Sweden truly leveling the difference between men and women. It is a responsibility that is our collective one. But it is a responsibility that the government right now does not seem prepared to take.

Time and again, one dances to the tune of the Sweden Democrats. People pretend it is raining when the party wants to abolish both the Institute for Human Rights and all work against racism and discrimination. That a racist party thinks the work against racism is not needed is not so strange in itself. It is the government's silence that is remarkable. For no one can also believe that it will stop here.

This is the result after half a year. And I shudder at what we will see and where we will be when this parliamentary term is over if the government does not put a stop to it.

The Discrimination Act must be developed and not abolished. It was not taken out of thin air – as if there were no need for it. It came into existence to increase people's freedom and equality and to secure the self-evident, namely all people's equal value.

It has direct links to the abominable crimes and violations of human dignity that occurred during World War II. Six million Jews died during the Holocaust. The world never wanted to see this happen again. The UN Declaration of Human Rights came into being, and then important conventions followed.

To be protected from discrimination is a human right. The grounds for discrimination that we have are gender, gender expression or identity, ethnic origin, religion or other belief, disability, sexual orientation and age.

In order for us to have a society free from discrimination, the legislation needs to be developed where there are deficiencies. Human rights concern all people, and it is extremely important that this is not politicized or diminished. When Sweden's next largest party views human rights as left-liberal sorrow or woke culture, all of us others have a responsibility to react extremely clearly.

The work for equality and against racism and discrimination has never been more important than now. With a racist party holding the keys to Rosenbad and a global backlash against both democracy and human rights, every vote for something else to be heard and take space means an enormous amount more.

Equality and measures against discrimination

With this, I also want to say that we stand behind all our reservations, but I move for approval only to reservations 6 and 18.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(Decisions were made under § 11.)

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