Equality and measures against discrimination

Arin Karapet (M)

Madam Speaker! I would like to start by thanking the Speaker's Bureau - and the Speaker, who is not present - for the fine tribute we had for our departed member. We in Sweden are not usually so good at honoring and remembering, but this was very nice. It was a colleague one met in the corridors who was very down-to-earth and pleasant. Even if one does not always agree with each other, there is a human being behind every member.

Madam Speaker! We are now going to debate equality and discrimination. Equality is a matter of freedom, not only for Sweden's women or for the world's women but also for us men. We know that if a child grows up in a home where the mother can achieve her full potential, the child will receive a much better upbringing and schooling.

Madam Speaker! Here in the chamber, we have in recent years debated a great deal about the escalating gang violence. I and the government felt that the current opposition did not do enough when they were in government. Now it is we who hold the government power and the responsibility, and we are taking powerful measures against the crime.

But on Monday, a report arrived from the Gender Equality Authority. That report, which I believe leaves no one untouched, describes how criminal gangs use young girls as a means of payment. It is elements of pure honor oppression and honor violence. One is not allowed to swear in this chamber, and I will not do so. But I did it internally when I took part of this.

The report bears witness to the fact that human exploitation is great in the criminal gangs, where ruthless violence and the exercise of power is the ultimate form, but also that young women and girls are drawn into these subcultures - not only as victims but also as actors. I do not know how to find the words so as not to break any rule, but now acts of violence committed by girls are beginning to occur.

This is something that we in politics must dare to speak openly about. We must dare to speak about the perpetrators, the practitioners, and the victims. We must move away from the stigma.

Madam Speaker! What I primarily want to raise is men who commit violence against their women, violence that has fatal consequences.

I do not believe that anyone has missed the recent cases of murders of innocent women during the past week.

I am myself the child of a woman who had to endure violence from her ex-husband. I know what scars it has left my mother. It also affected me, even though I was young and did not fully understand it. When one gets older, one perhaps begins to understand a bit more. Even today, it would be difficult for us to have that discussion. It is a pain that one suppresses, that one swallows and keeps inside. One wants to be proud; one wants to be strong. But it has affected me, also in the issue of men who commit violence against women. There must be total zero tolerance.

In Sweden, we usually tend to dance around this. It is not a new problem in our society. It is a problem that we have had for a very long time.

Since I was elected in 2018, and I remember the last time it was highlighted, all parties in this chamber have started talking about this. I do not want to point out any particular minister or any party right now, because this is an issue that affects us all.

We must, from the Swedish side, move from words to action. We are very good at talking about problems. We are very good at repeating what is happening in our society. But we also know that legislation is slow-moving, so every time we start talking about a problem that we already know about, we have postponed potential measures that would have had an effect.

That is why this government is moving forward with ensuring that more men can be remanded in custody. More men can be convicted. More men can be issued restraining orders. More men can be fitted with ankle bracelets. More men who commit repeated sexual offenses against women can be imprisoned for an indefinite period. The talk must come to an end.

This work is currently ongoing in the Government Offices, and I hope that the focus in today's debate can fall on what measures we want to take so that a woman who is subjected to violence - in the home, in a relationship, or wherever she may be - shall know that the rule of law and society stand on her side.

One thing I want to add before I conclude my speech is that the Ministry of Justice is now putting forward a bill: If the woman who has been subjected to violence does not have the rental contract, she, that is, the victim, should be able to take over the rental contract. In some cases, we also see that the man committing the violence, who most often has the economic upper hand, drags out the process when it comes to the division of property. We want to review how the division of property can be expedited so that the woman does not end up in an even more vulnerable position.

It is time that we politicians in this chamber ensure that the rule of law and society, once and for all, take the side of the victims and do not let the perpetrators roam free.

Madam Speaker! I vote in favor of the committee's proposal.

(Applause)

In this speech, Magnus Resare (M) agreed.

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

Sofia Amloh (S)

Madam Speaker! I thank the member for a very good speech. I agree with a good deal of what was stated in the speech. I also thank the member for a very personal speech.

I intend, however, to dwell a little on what the member did not have much of in his speech: the economic equality policy.

Moderate ministers with several government representatives have on repeated occasions said that what is needed now in the economically difficult situation that Sweden finds itself in - perhaps especially many women, who pay a very high price for the economic crisis that we have been in for a very long time - is that one makes good financial trade-offs.

I am very concerned that it is considered acceptable trade-offs when women have to sell what they have to make ends meet and to pay rent. They might even have to take out credits to put food on the table. We also see that women feel an increasing anxiety about not even being able to separate or divorce because of their economic situation.

I wonder in what way it is considered good financial trade-offs when it is that reality and those consequences we see spreading across the entire country and when we see all the women out there who are living in this very tough economic situation.

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

Arin Karapet (M)

Mr. Speaker! I do not understand what direct question I am supposed to answer when I hear this about financial trade-offs. If I am to take advantage of my speaking time and speak generally, I can say yes, households' purchasing power has decreased. This applies not only to women and single men but also to older people, younger people, and families with children. We had double-digit inflation. It is necessary to press down inflation, but we have also lowered the tax for ordinary wage earners, where the largest group among low- and middle-income earners are women.

I believe the exchange may concern how much money the government has invested in welfare. In that case, I can answer that those who uphold the welfare must also be able to keep more of their salary. It is with their salary and their earned income that one can put food on the table and pay the rent.

We can talk about the high fuel prices. Under Sofia Åhlöfs government, a liter of diesel cost 28 kronor. With the Moderate-led government, the price is 18 kronor. This drove up inflation.

It was largely the decommissioning of two nuclear power plants and the reduction obligation that caused us to end up in such high inflation. It was the government of Member Sofia Åhlöh that was responsible for this. It is our Moderate-led government that has had to clean up, and now we see how we are pushing down the inflation.

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

Sofia Amloh (S)

Mr. Speaker! One third of all single women cannot afford to put their children in an organized leisure activity. In that case, one might have no reason to take them anywhere.

You are investing in welfare, absolutely. Obviously, this is not something that is noticed out in the regions, rather the opposite – we see that the working conditions and the work environment are deteriorating. Women, the welfare workers, risk being laid off with this policy. So these investments are very great, but if you can't even keep your job, it is incredibly difficult to put food on the table. Instead, one should be able to continue to have a work environment where one feels well and where one has the strength to work all day.

But these are the financial trade-offs this government is making. One can wonder, when they choose in this situation to remove the plastic bag tax instead of taxing all those billions in excess profits that the banks make. They are protected. The plastic bag tax shall be removed, but women must take out loans. We see in the Kronofogden's measurements that the numbers are skyrocketing, and it is primarily women who stand out. This is something this government is not prepared to do anything about.

Economic equality is completely fundamental for whether one can be independent on all other levels in society. So I ask the question again: Does this government intend to do anything for women's economic situation and for economic equality, or is it just words? Is this actually not prioritized?

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

Arin Karapet (M)

Mr. Speaker! Member Amloh is missing something very clear. For the first place, we two as members are responsible, among other things, for Sweden's public finances, that is to say the taxes we collect. We both have colleagues who are regional politicians, and they have their responsibility. Most regions are no longer governed by my party the Moderates but are governed by Social Democrats.

Those who have been in regional politics can say this: Perhaps one should review how many communicators one has. Perhaps one should turn over every stone, as the party leader of the member Amloh said as Prime Minister. Many regions waste money on much other than the core mission. They must do their homework. The government provided 16 billion and now an additional 6 billion. But I would like to ask Göran Persson what he would have said about just injecting money. A bit of economic discipline is required instead of just pouring out money.

One can laugh, but - believe me! - you won't be doing that when inflation is up at 10 or 15 percent again because money is simply being poured out in the short term. We have prices that are going up. The real wage increases have been eaten up. Inflation has skyrocketed. This is largely due to the Social Democrats' symbolic politics.

One can look at why inflation has gone down. Two of the three reasons are lower fuel costs and lower electricity prices. The Social Democrats' policy led to higher electricity prices and higher fuel prices. Now Sweden's welfare workers, primarily women, have to swallow this. You drove up inflation and did not take your responsibility.

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

Sofia Amloh (S)

Mr. Speaker! On 23 December 2023, a man in Oxelösund was reported for having assaulted a woman he is acquainted with. On 29 December 2023, a woman was found dead in a residence in Vingåker. Her husband has been arrested. He has previously been convicted of assaulting her. On 3 January 2024, a man was arrested in a residence in Eskilstuna suspected of assault of a woman. On 6 January 2024, a woman was found dead in a residence in Vagnhärad. A man was arrested in the residence.

In one of the cases, the woman's husband had been arrested two months before she was found murdered for having threatened her with a pair of scissors because she wanted to leave him. In a police interrogation, the woman said: I no longer want to be a punching bag. In another of the cases, the husband had previously served two prison sentences for assaulting his wife. Neighbors testify that the woman had been urged to leave the husband. In both cases where women were found murdered in a residence, there is a long history of violence that has been described in police interrogations by the women who are now murdered.

These are just events from my constituency Sörmland during the Christmas break, which is actually supposed to be filled with peace and joy together with loved ones.

Mr. Speaker! Many thousands of women live daily with violence and oppression. They are constantly afraid for their lives. We cannot allow this to be reduced to something that is only the women's responsibility, a marginal problem for the individual. In the last week, three women have died. In all cases, a man with whom they had some form of relationship has been arrested suspected of murder.

Three years ago, the then National Police Commissioner established the police's zero vision for violence against women and emphasized that the issue is as prioritized as gang crime. In the police's annual report for 2023, which was released in recent days, it is however stated that they have not made any significant difference for the women subjected to violence. This is beyond all criticism. The betrayal is completely obvious, and the government is now held responsible.

It is still a fact today that when it comes to men's violence against women, the effort has been completely absent, in contrast to what has happened regarding gang violence. The police's only targeted group against violence against women, Igor, was disbanded, despite everything pointing to good results. I cannot interpret this as anything other than a deprioritization.

Just as it is the case with gang crime, a zero tolerance towards crimes against women is required. 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 raped without effective measures being taken against the perpetrator.

We Social Democrats want to see a zero vision for men's violence against women to cease. It would constitute a clear signal that the entire society needs to consolidate efforts further and be an important steering tool in the continued work.

Mr. Speaker! A report from SKR shows that today, only one in five women is offered protected housing by the social services. We Social Democrats see a worrying trend in Sweden where the number of days and the number of women granted protected housing are falling dramatically, while at the same time we see that more are seeking help and support. Police reports of violence against women are increasing. It is also important that children in the household are also granted protection.

The Women's Peace Barometer, which examines the municipalities' work, shows extensive deficiencies in the support for women and children subjected to violence. Seven out of ten municipalities state that the withdrawn state development funds for the work against violence in close relationships will have a large or quite large impact on their work.

Mr. Speaker! Inflation hits Swedish households in general and in particular those households that are especially vulnerable with small or no margins. Among the particularly vulnerable households are single women and children. We are reached by report after report that a third of all adults in Sweden have difficulty paying running expenses such as rent and food.

The Swedish Enforcement Authority points out historically high levels of debt among the Swedish people. Women stand out in particular. Two out of three single parents – who are mainly women – cannot afford to let their children participate in an organized leisure activity. Six out of ten women feel anxiety about their finances and about whether they would manage to move to their own housing in the event of a separation or a divorce. This is in Sweden in 2024.

The common thread, or perhaps rather the blue-brown thread, is that it is primarily the women who are affected by the government's policy. It is women working in the welfare sector's female-dominated professions who pay for the cuts in the form of increased stress, worse working conditions, and lower wages. It is also women who are forced to step in and take responsibility when the tax-funded welfare is withdrawn by reducing their working hours to take care of an aging parent or another close relative. Responsibility without power is helplessness.

Mr. Speaker! Today we are dealing with a motion report concerning equality and discrimination. This is very important in a time like this, where the climate of conversation is tough and polarizations and extreme expressions take up a large space, in a time when democracy is being attacked. It is even more important to stand up particularly firmly, securely, and uncompromisingly for just equality and against all forms of discrimination.

From the perspective of society and politics, all forms of discrimination must be combated forcefully. The Equality Ombudsman's annual report shows that disability, gender, and ethnicity are the grounds for discrimination that generate the largest proportion of reports to the authority. Furthermore, the number has increased significantly in recent years. This is a strong signal that the policy needs to raise its ambitions.

The SD government has much to prove on that front. We Social Democrats see the need for a review of structural discrimination in the labor market and a special focus on ethnic background, as well as a review of how to reduce discrimination in the labor market.

Mr. Speaker! I am deeply outraged when municipalities cannot afford to place women in sheltered housing, when women are not taken seriously, when police resources are not prioritized to protect women from being subjected to violence or murdered, when women are forced to go into debt up to their ears to pay running costs due to the government's poor fiscal policy, or when people are not allowed to attend job interviews because of their name or their skin color. Every day that this continues and the government does not take actions that are offensive enough, it is a betrayal and a failure that I can only deplore.

Mr. Speaker! I move for approval of reservations 8 and 12 but obviously stand behind all of our reservations.

(Applause)

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

Arin Karapet (M)

Mr. Speaker! There is a lot of talk about how everything should be. The Moderate-led government has been in power for almost two years. For eight years, the Social Democrats sat in power.

It is no new problems that Member Amloh highlights. I was born in 1988 myself, and I also grew up with very poor economic conditions and a single mother. How did it look then, and how does it look today? Back then, it was the Social Democrats who were in power. Back then, one went directly into the system, the benefit trap, even if one was fully capable of working.

Our social safety net is for those who need it. But for those who are capable of working and are part of the labor market, it must always pay to work.

In eight or nine minutes, there were many emotional outbursts in Member Amloh's speech, and much about how angry she is becoming. I have understood from the previous exchange of remarks that she does not like the policy that the current government is pursuing at all. But my question to Member Amloh is: If the Social Democrats had been in power today, what measures would you have taken so that single mothers with small margins in their finances would be able to make ends meet in their everyday lives?

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

Sofia Amloh (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Member, for the questions! I would like to start by reminding that I agreed with several parts of the Member's speech and think they were good.

I think it is still nice to be asked what we would have done in power. It might also provide some tips for the current government to act on, as it seems to be a bit poor with proposals on the government's proposal list.

Among other things, we have proposed an increased child allowance or that one could take some money from the banks and their excess profits. There is one billion or another to be retrieved there if finances are a bit tight. It is needed to actually ensure that one can strengthen the welfare, that the municipalities can provide protected housing to all the women who need it and that the women can still have a good working environment. One might be able to improve it. It would be even nicer, as we see it, if one could be supplied with competence to a much higher degree.

Then the members mentioned that those who are capable of working shall work. There are incredibly many women who want to work but do not get into the Swedish labor market. They want support to enter employment, because they know how important it is to be economically independent and how important it is for integration. They want to enter Swedish society. We want to see these women on the Swedish labor market. We would have ensured that the measures proposed in the investigation are implemented when it comes to foreign-born women being able to establish themselves in the Swedish labor market.

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

Arin Karapet (M)

Mr. Speaker! Yes, it is good that the foreign women are mentioned here. But, Sofia Amloh, your immigration policy did not improve their chances of entering the labor market. It did not give the municipalities or the regions better conditions, and it did not result in the state treasury becoming better.

I hope that the Social Democrats learn a lesson. I hope that when one makes a deal with three parties that are in favor of free immigration, one can hold back. Immigration costs.

Then we shall move on to the bank tax. That sounds very good. I am not a defender of banks. They make money. They deal with transactions, financial instruments, and all sorts of things. But we can go back to what Member Amloh asked me a question about.

Households are not doing well. Yes, the mortgage rates have gone up by approximately 3-4 percentage points. Believe me! It is the customers who will have to pay. It will sound great from this rostrum. There will be much applause, many emotional outbursts, many likes and perhaps hand hearts on Facebook. But when the bill then, at the end of the month, reaches the Swedish households, the Swedish middle class, it is they who will have to pay. It is not the case that the banks have enormous margins on the mortgages. The individual mortgage borrower will have to pay.

Then perhaps the answer from MP Amloh will be: Yes, but we are raising the child allowance. By how much? 100 kronor. It is not that you are proposing a tripled child allowance. It is 100 kronor. Go into Ica! You can hardly get half a kilo of cheese for 100 kronor now. The olive oil cost 50-60 kronor last year. Now it is 150 kronor at Ica Maxi.

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

Sofia Amloh (S)

Mr. Speaker! 100 kronor would play a very big role for very many parents and single women. But it is perhaps something that the member does not see or understand. On that last day, it matters that one can put food on the table and that it might not be oatmeal for dinner once again.

But it is also quite unserious of the member to claim that the Social Democrats have never done anything good at all and that we are the root of all evil. I think it becomes a bit unserious.

The Speaker is a government representative in this debate and is answerable when we stand in this economic crisis that hits hard against the welfare workers and against women.

One can both fight inflation and ensure that the most vulnerable do not pay the absolute highest price. The Social Democratic-led government took measure after measure during the pandemic, which was also a crisis, to ensure that companies would not go bankrupt and that the healthcare system would have the resources it needed. It is certainly possible to do much more than what you are doing right now.

(Applause)

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

Camilla Rinaldo Miller (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I would like to begin by expressing my support for the committee's proposal and thus the rejection of all motions.

Mr. 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. The Riksdag has made a decision on this goal, and it is an overarching goal. Based on that, the government has since established six sub-goals that guide the government's policy.

Mr. Speaker! What is equality, really? For some, it seems that equality is that the days in the parental leave are shared equally between mothers and fathers - then we have achieved an equality in the homes automatically.

When our children were small, I was the one who was home most because my husband did not have the possibility to be home then. When they became older, it was my husband who was home more, because I did not have that possibility. Regardless of which of us has taken out parental leave, we have shared the work at home – it is about cleaning, shopping, putting the children to bed, cooking, and so on. Or rather: Now I wasn't actually quite fair. It is probably my husband who has done a bit more than I have done, even though he never took out particularly many parental days. Isn't that equality? We did not share the parental insurance days completely equally, but we shared the work at home a bit more equally.

Mr. Speaker! I think we need to broaden the discussion regarding equality and the parental insurance. It cannot just be about sharing the days equally.

According to a report from the Swedish Social Insurance Agency from the end of last year, parents' total parental leave is less equal than the withdrawal of parental benefits shows. According to the report, mothers are on average on parental leave for just over twelve months during the child's first two years. Four of these months are unpaid leave. Fathers are on average on parental leave for just over three months, and barely one of these months is unpaid leave.

No one here wants more mothers to take unpaid parental leave, do they? Unpaid parental leave affects them financially in the long run.

Mr. Speaker! We cannot blindly stare at the withdrawal of parental days as a measure of equality. Equality is more than that, and the parental insurance has a greater purpose than equality. Those who want and can be at home shall be allowed to be. Let the parents decide for themselves!

We want to see a completely flexible parental leave - you have heard this before - where the parents themselves get to decide which distribution fits their specific family situation best. We trust, in fact, that parents are capable of making decisions that are best for their children.

One proposal would be to ask what mothers want, what parents want, in order to create safe families and good upbringing conditions for our children. We Christian Democrats do not believe that we get more equal homes just because one forces through a quota in the parental leave.

Seven out of ten voters say no to quotas in the parental leave. Still, parties on both the right and left choose to act in the opposite direction. Many of the Social Democratic voters oppose their own party's proposal for restrictions in the parental leave.

My message is clear: The state shall support families, not rule them. The Christian Democrats will continue to fight for a completely free parental insurance.

Mr. Speaker! Let me remind once again of the Riksdag's goal for equality: Women and men shall have the same power to shape society and their own lives. True equality is the freedom to make one's own life choices. The most decisive work for equality begins with me, in my home and in my upbringing of my children.

Mr. Speaker! Something that, on the other hand, is not equal is unjustified pay differences. The work to eliminate unjustified pay differences is therefore very important. This is also one of the six sub-targets - economic equality.

For me, it is a self-evident matter that there should be equal pay for equal work. I know that unfortunately it is not so everywhere yet. But the work for us to reach the goal continues daily. Together, we want to and will continue the work of removing unjustified pay differences.

Mr. Speaker! Last year, the Riksdag made an announcement to the government regarding the introduction of a zero vision for violence in close relationships. We know that women are most vulnerable when it comes to violence in close relationships. In just the last week, there have been reports of three women who have died. In all cases, a man with whom they had some form of close relationship has been arrested suspected of murder. Most recently, the day before yesterday, the Gender Equality Authority presented a report on gang criminals selling girls to pay off debts.

Violence, threats and harassment against women are everywhere. It starts much earlier with psychological abuse, degradation and finally physical violence. We must do something about this. It is about values.

The current government has shifted the focus so that the victim's perspective becomes more important than the perpetrator's. A review of the entire Penal Code is underway, with the aim of obtaining more just punishments that are in proportion to the violence and violation that the victim was subjected to.

Men who hit women shall be remanded in custody, and the restraining orders shall become more extensive. The priority is that vulnerable women shall be given the opportunity to feel safety and security. A woman who has been victimized shall receive the protection she needs for a long time. It is the men who shall be moved, not the affected women. This government is now implementing these tightenings. No more woman shall have to die.

Mr. Speaker! We know that violence also occurs against many elderly people, against men, and in same-sex relationships. Therefore, the government was given the mandate to introduce a zero vision for all violence in close relationships.

You and I make a difference for the possibility of reaching the goal by, as a colleague, family member, or simply a fellow human being, seeing and acting when someone is subjected to violence in a close relationship. We must never stand by silently and watch when someone is exploited or abused by someone else. We must never accept any form of violence in close relationships. This applies to both physical and psychological violence, but also economic violence. It is about a collective, long-term effort for every individual person who is subjected to it.

Mr. Speaker! I know that the work will take time. But I want to assure you who are listening that with the Christian Democrats in the government, that work will be prioritized. Every single person has the right to an equal and dignified life, because every fellow human being is valuable. Therefore, we who have been given the trust to participate and influence the development shall do so in the right direction. We must never stop fighting for real equality and for the opportunity to make one's own life choices.

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

Helena Vilhelmsson (C)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you for the speech, member!

I hadn't actually intended to bring up the parental leave. But I cannot help it.

We have one of the world's most generous parental leave systems. Still, the Christian Democrats want to give parents the opportunity to be at home even more, for example, unpaid. It is a strange way to counter economic inequality. The member does not mention that women over a lifetime earn approximately 4 million kronor less than men, and it all begins when one has children. The number of unpaid days that are possible to take should therefore decrease instead of increase, which they do with the Christian Democrats' proposal.

But I would actually like to ask about something else. In a newspaper at home, I read an op-ed written under the names of Sara Kullgren, Paula Säker, and Erika Gidlöf – the latter two are active KD women in the county. They mention that they want to introduce a defection program for abused women. They describe meritiously that a defection support is needed, similar to the one that exists for gang criminals. They describe very well that support is needed from the beginning, when one breaks up from the relationship, until one has their own housing and their own life.

It is very good. It is exactly what the Centerpartiet has proposed for a number of years. It is also included in this report, which we will vote on at the vote that will take place tomorrow.

I wonder if this is something the Christian Democrats are working for at the national level. In what way, if so, do the Christian Democrats want the Riksdag and the government to work to ensure that a leave program for women living in a violent relationship actually comes to fruition?

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

Camilla Rinaldo Miller (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you for the question, Member Vilhelmsson!

I still have to stop at the parental leave, because the member is raising it. Yes, Sweden has a very generous parental leave. And yes, we Christian Democrats want to make it even more generous. All research shows, in fact, that the parents are the most important individuals for the child during the child's first three years. Therefore, we would like to give parents the opportunity to be at home longer.

I would, however, like to ask Member Vilhelmsson where she has seen that we want more days to be unpaid. I do not recognize that we would have submitted a proposal to increase the number of days of unpaid parental leave. The Member must help me find out where we would have submitted such a proposal.

Regarding the second question, concerning women's vulnerability, I was in my speech that the government is on the question of helping women to obtain protection for a long period. We will absolutely work with a defection program when we are in a government position. I do not want to go into it any further than what was written in the debate article.

In order for women to get a chance to start over, we need to utilize all possible tools. We must, for example, help a woman to leave. If it is, for example, the man in the relationship who is on the rental agreement, we must help the woman to be able to take over the rental agreement. But we must also help her to get a chance to be protected for a long period of time.

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

Helena Vilhelmsson (C)

Mr. Speaker! If it is important for the children that the parents are at home during the first three years, then it is just as important that both mother and father are at home. Since that is not the case, the question is whether we, with a state-subsidized and financed insurance system, should not steer so that both mother and father are at home. It is good for the children if they are, but it is above all good for both of their finances. I do not want to contribute to a state system leading to women receiving lower pensions, which they actually do.

It was perhaps a careless choice of words on my part. What I actually mean is that if one reserves the days to a lesser extent, the risk is greater that women might be at home more without pay.

I thank you for the answer regarding violence in close relationships and a leaving program. I have further questions. I do not know if the member mentioned the right to a contact person, but it is a good thing that is stated in the submission. It is also described aptly that when it comes to gang violence, everyone knows what to do, but when it comes to violence against women, neither social services, the police, nor others are really sure what to do.

The Chairman mentioned, as others also have mentioned in the speaker's chair, that the woman should be able to take over the lease. That is very good. But in cases where there is no lease and she must move because the man is so threatening, that does not help. There must be a national housing queue. This is included in the Center Party's proposal for the departure program.

My question is actually: Should we not then vote for the Center Party's proposal when we vote on this tomorrow?

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

Camilla Rinaldo Miller (KD)

Mr. Speaker! This government allowed the change from 30 double days to 60 double days. It means that both parents have the opportunity to be at home at the same time. It does not affect the woman financially. But the child gets the opportunity to have both parents at home at the same time. We believe, in fact, that parents are capable of deciding what is best for their children. We do not think that the state should rule the families. The state should support families.

Something has happened. I met, for example, a woman who works as a midwife. Since the children became older, she has moved up to working full-time. But in light of the new working time directives, with daily rest and weekly rest, she has chosen to reduce her working hours again and work 90 percent, because she feels that she cannot manage. It is something we need to talk about, because that puts her in a financial situation in the future that affects her. Now that she has the opportunity to work full-time, it is the changed rules that are causing the problem.

There is, therefore, much to talk about when it comes to economic equality and women's economic situation. I think it is very important that we talk about it. That is why we in Kristdemokraterna have also proposed that one should be able to share the premium pension, i.e., share the pension-qualifying income when the parents are at home, so that the one who chooses to be at home is not economically disadvantaged in the future. We have said that it should be mandatory, but if one wants to opt out, one should be able to do so. We do, however, believe that it is important to give a clear signal that the one who wants to be at home should have the opportunity to be so without being affected economically. For me, it is extremely important to give the parents the mandate to manage their leave themselves.

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

Ciczie Weidby (V)

Mr. Speaker! I also want to talk about the parental leave. It emerged with all desirable clarity that the Christian Democrats and Camilla Rinaldo Miller do not think that the state should interfere in how one takes out their parental days and uses the parental leave. I have a few questions.

How is it that women choose to stay at home with the children to a much greater extent and thus get poorer wage development, poorer pensions and so on? When Camilla Rinaldo Miller says that the state should not rule, this still becomes some kind of state wage-cut policy that reinforces women's wages in this country, even though we abolished them a long time ago.

Camilla Rinaldo Miller also stated in her speech that we have unjustified wage differences in Sweden. Unfortunately, I missed the series of measures that the government intends to take to tackle them. There are various measures, but I must have unfortunately missed them in Camilla Rinaldo Miller's speech.

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

Camilla Rinaldo Miller (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Member Ciczie Weidby, for giving me the opportunity to speak more about the parental leave! I think very highly of it.

In my speech, I spoke from my own situation and my own perspective. I was at home most when the children were small, and then my husband took over. Our children were around ten months old when I started working. For our first child, we chose to have them with a childminder so that it only needed to be attached to one adult. We chose to have the child with the childminder three days a week and four days at home, because my husband and I wanted to feel that it was we who were raising our child. It was our way of solving our family situation.

Everyone has different family situations. I actually have good faith in Swedish parents and believe that they are capable of choosing based on what is best in their own family's unique situation.

Why is it then that most women choose to stay at home? I spoke with a grandmother whose daughter became a mother quite late in life. She is a career woman, one could say. She had said early on that she would only be at home for six months and then go back to work. That was her goal. Now the child is approaching six months, and all of a sudden, it is no longer as relevant to go back to work anymore.

It can actually be the case that one wants to be at home. I cannot understand why one should forbid or prevent mothers or fathers from being at home as much as they want. It is for the simple reason that I think it would be best if all days in the parental leave are both parents' to an equal extent, and that each family then gets to distribute them themselves based on what fits their life puzzle best.

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

Ciczie Weidby (V)

Mr. Speaker! If we are to be private and personal, I can say that I was born in 1974. It is a fantastic year in many ways and also the year when we got a parental insurance in this country. That meant that my father could be home a little bit with me. He welcomed it very much, even though the other guys on the construction site mocked him a little. It's not a man's thing to be home with the children, is it? He had also had a child with a nurse - and not just any nurse, but a pediatric nurse. Everyone understands that if there is someone who is going to be home and take care of the children, it is her. But the fantastic thing here is that it gave him the opportunity to be just as much a parent as my mother was. That is the core of the matter.

We have a huge number of pieces of legislation where, initially, people thought that, for example, they were allowed to raise their children with ear-pulling. They thought: "No one shall tell me how I should raise my child! Aga and assault are two different things!" We said: "No, that is not the case."

Our entire modern democracy is built on the fact that we have moved away from very many different ideas. Someone came up with: "Hello! Women must be allowed to vote." But very many thought: "We don't believe at all that they are capable of doing that." Things and circumstances change in a society. Certain norms and values change as these things change.

I asked about the unjustified wage differences, which are a result of the fact that we do not share responsibilities and so on in society. I give Camilla Rinaldo Miller the time in her final speech to list all the fantastic measures and proposals that the government has to address the unjustified wage differences between men and women in our country.

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

Camilla Rinaldo Miller (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Member Weidby, for the reminder that I did not answer the second question! I became so engaged in my heart's matter. We shall drop it and move on to measures against unreasonable wage differences.

I said in my speech that it really is not okay that one does not have equal pay for equal work. I could list several measures, but Member of Parliament Weidby, I and everyone else agree that the parties should negotiate the wages, do we? Then the question is whether I should stand here and talk about how wages should be set.

I think it is a self-evident matter that one should have equal pay for equal work. That self-evidence does not shine through in our society, but we must dare to talk about it, and we must dare to help those women who do not have the correct pay for the correct work compared to a colleague. I probably will not go in and direct things too clearly, but it is important that we talk about this and do not pretend that it does not exist. Therefore, we shall simply continue to encourage people to dare to have these conversations.

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

Michael Rubbestad (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I would like to begin by extending a big thank you to the Speaker's Bureau for the fine speech regarding my party colleague Svenne, who unfortunately left us recently.

In this debate, we have the task of addressing a number of central issues. I believe you will recognize some things that I highlight from the Christian Democrats' statement. We are going to touch upon equality, men's violence against women, violence in close relationships, measures to counter discrimination, as well as the fight against honor-related violence and oppression. These issues are all of the utmost importance. I will try, even though it is difficult, to squeeze everything into only one debate in a limited time. I therefore apologize if I speak a little fast.

The overriding goal for Sweden's gender equality policy is found in the following formulation: Women and men shall have the same power to shape society and their own lives. It is a goal that has support from all political parties. Despite this consensus, questions arise regarding how these goals should be measured and assessed. Differences arise between the different political parties, primarily on the right-left scale. It becomes clear in how we believe Sweden should act to achieve equality.

With current practice, one looks at the proportion of women and men in different contexts, and the result is then presented as a percentage. If the proportion for both genders amounts to at least 40 percent, it is considered equal. If, however, it is more than 60 percent of one gender, it is unequal. If it is 30 percent women and 70 percent men, it is unequal. If it is 42 percent women and 58 percent men, it is equal.

Let us take preschool as an example. There, women make up 96 percent of the workforce, this in a society where it is very important to have good role models from both genders for our children. In the woodworking industry, the completely opposite situation prevails. There, the proportion of men is over 99 percent. But no discussion is held regarding this clear inequality. Instead, the focus is on the composition in boards and listed companies or on who saves the most in stocks.

Why is it like this? Why are there over 99 percent men in the carpentry industry and 96 percent women in preschool? According to research, there are primarily three reasons.

Firstly, there are stereotypical perceptions of what should be considered masculine and feminine occupations, which can deter people from seeking a certain profession if they consider themselves to belong to the "wrong" gender.

Secondly, the work environment may be perceived as less appealing. Furthermore, a workplace culture that is strongly dominated by a certain gender can be off-putting or even lead to feelings of exclusion.

Thirdly, in recruitment processes and the design of educational pathways, one can unconsciously favor one gender, for example through the language used in job advertisements or by not actively working to attract applicants of the opposite gender to education that leads to the profession.

Even though there are formally no obstacles for women to work in, for example, the carpentry industry, there is a need to change the conditions to promote a more natural establishment of women in the industry. The keyword here is precisely natural.

The Sweden Democrats believe that conditions should be prioritized over outcomes when it comes to the equality goals. Today's method, which focuses on exactly outcomes, does not fully reflect the reality of equality. As I mentioned earlier, it is considered automatically equal if it is at least 40 percent of both genders. In a place where there are 45 percent women and 55 percent men, but where the men with their small majority rule everything with an iron fist and the women have nothing to say about it, it is therefore still considered equal. No consideration is then taken at all of the influence or that which is de facto highlighted in the overall goal: "power to shape society and one's own life."

Do women have the same opportunities to establish themselves within the carpentry industry as men? Do men have the same opportunities as women to seek employment in preschools, or is it as Skolverket says: that men are hindered because of the pedophile debate? Regardless of what we wish the answer were, the answer to both questions is: No, they do not have the same opportunities.

What we can do is work on changing the conditions so that more women and men naturally establish themselves in respective gender-dominated industries. We can break down stereotypes and create inclusive workplaces. We can provide encouragement to women who are interested in male-dominated professions as well as highlight female role models within the industry to show that the profession is open to everyone regardless of gender.

But if the answer to the questions had been yes, that is to say that women and men actually have the same opportunities but perhaps still choose or decline a certain profession, it is, in our opinion, equal even if the figure were less than 40 percent for either of the genders. Equality is, in fact, the freedom to be able to choose for oneself. Equality is that gender identity truly plays no role whatsoever.

Equality is not that a mother and a father are at home with their children in exactly the same extent, as we just heard in the previous exchange. Equality is that the family is free to choose for themselves what suits that specific unique family best. It is not figures that decide - it is reality.

Create the conditions, stop staring blindly at the outcome and create good conditions through good education, good upbringing and good role models! We believe that it is so we create true equality. By forcing an outcome, however, we can at best address a symptom and get good results on paper, but we sweep the actual reasons under the carpet.

Mr. Speaker! We need to review how we measure equality, so that we instead focus on conditions rather than outcomes. I therefore move for the approval of the Sverigedemokraterna's reservation number 2 regarding strategies to achieve an equal society. Otherwise, we stand behind the committee's proposed decision in this report, but I also want to take the opportunity to refer to the special statement from Sverigedemokraterna; we have a secondary motion for the event that our reservation number 13 should, against all odds, not win the House's favor.

When we are speaking about the gender equality policy sub-goals, I can say that the Sweden Democrats argue that a seventh sub-goal should be introduced in the gender equality policy, aimed at combating honor-related violence and oppression. This proposal, which many here are aware of, is found in the extensive report of 234 pages that was released this week and which shows how complex the issue is. The investigation concludes, admittedly, that the work against honor-related violence and oppression can be accommodated within an already existing sub-goal, but we believe that a special focus is necessary to fully address and counteract these crimes. Today, honor-related violence and oppression are lumped together with men's violence against women and violence in close relationships. The exception is that all of this leads to very serious consequences, while the types of problems are completely different and thus also need to be handled in completely different ways.

In recent decades, honor-related violence and oppression have unfortunately established themselves as part of an emerging parallel social structure in our country. We increasingly receive reports about individuals who, through an oppressive and violent honor culture, severely restrict other individuals' right to freedom and self-determination. In the name of honor, people are subjected to harassment, threats, and acts of violence by those closest to them, by their own family. People are forced to give up their own will and the possibility to shape their own lives, which is the fundamental cornerstone of Swedish equality. And sometimes, people pay for their family's coveted honor with their lives.

Most often it is girls and women who are subjected to violence, violations, and pressure by people in their vicinity, but boys and men are also affected - all to uphold a family honor that clashes with our secular and modern society. This must not occur in Sweden. It does not only conflict with our laws and our equal way of living - it also conflicts with the UN's declaration of human rights. By establishing a seventh sub-objective, we believe that the issue of countering honor-related violence and oppression with full force will receive the focus that the issue unfortunately needs.

When we now speak of honor-related violence and oppression from an equality context, it is difficult, if not impossible, not to mention the value-driven veil. From August 1, 2018, it has been forbidden to wear full-face coverings, for example burqa and niqab, in public places in Denmark. A burqa covers the entire body from head to toe, including the face, with a small mesh over the eye area that allows the woman to look out. A niqab covers the entire face and body but leaves a small area open around the eyes or has a thinner fabric that one can pull to the side to show the eyes if need arises. If one violates the ban in Denmark, one risks a fine of approximately 1,400 Swedish kronor. For repeated offenses, the fine amount can be increased.

Similar bans also exist in several other European countries, such as Belgium, France, Latvia, and Austria. Latvia, for example, decided to introduce a ban on the valuation-based full-face veil in all public places in 2016. According to Latvia's then Minister of Justice Dzintars Rasnacs, the ban was needed to protect Latvia's cultural values, the country's common public and cultural space, and every individual.

It is of the utmost importance that we defend our democratic, cultural and secular values against all attempts to combat them. One step in this is that we ban the all-encompassing and women-oppressing value-driven veil in all public places.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would like to highlight Sweden's anti-discrimination legislation. During the past year, just over 5,000 reports were submitted to the Equality Ombudsman. Of these, one-third were dismissed as they were not judged to meet the criteria for any of the seven grounds of discrimination. This means, in other words, that approximately 1,500 people who feel discriminated against every year do not even have their case examined, because we have legislation that is far too limited.

Instead of continuously broadening the laws or introducing new grounds for discrimination that may need to be revised over time or that risk excluding some group or category of people, the Discrimination Act should be reviewed and fundamentally changed. We propose a review of the discrimination legislation with the aim of introducing "undue differential treatment," as this would instead capture all forms of discrimination, so that all people are covered regardless of the ground for discrimination.

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

Sofia Amloh (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, member, for the speech!

I thought I would start by mentioning how we view the matter and where we do not agree with what the member states. When we talk about quotas or positive discrimination, we Social Democrats do not mean that it should be a goal, but it is a means and a tool to achieve a goal. I want that to be very clear for everyone.

When it comes to shattering glass ceilings or breaking norms, it does not happen by itself. It requires active action and active decisions to get there. A number of very large society-changing reforms have been made over time if we look purely historically.

It concerns, for example, the reform regarding childcare. The aim was that women should not stay at home but instead enter the labor market and work. Childcare was required for women to be able to do that.

One must remember that it did not happen without resistance. It is very easy for us to forget that today. It took a long time to get that reform in place.

There was opposition from many sides. It was not only political but also from the public. Still, it was necessary to make that reform. It is a reform that has played a very large role for the Swedish economy and employment.

What reforms do the Sweden Democrats want to make that are so socially transformative? It is about major reforms that level differences between men and women, which may require breaking norms and which may not be so popular at the time of introduction.

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

Michael Rubbestad (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Sofia Amloh, for the question!

Preschool is, for example, a quite important reform. We have Alva Myrdal and the Social Democrats to thank for that in some sense. It is something that today, just as the member says, is a given.

I believe that there are very many steps that we need to take. We do not necessarily need to take the ones that are not popular. The important thing is still that they work.

I perceive it as such that for the Social Democrats and generally speaking the parties on the left side, it is very important that it goes fast even if it does not always turn out right. For me, it is rather the opposite. It is important that it turns out right and not that it goes fast.

I believe that we need to work with norms and values, good role models and good upbringing. Unfortunately, it is a method that will take time. But I also believe that it produces an effect that lasts over time.

If we force through a reform, it can in some cases lead to resistance. But it can also lead to us implementing something that actually doesn't change anything fundamentally, but people just go around and are irritated. The slightest thing we were to back down from that legislation, we would fall back.

We simply need to change the view on, for example, who takes care of the unpaid care work at home, who takes care of the children, or what is masculine, feminine, and such things. We need to work long-term on changing values.

I believe that work begins, for example, in preschool. There we see today that we have 96 percent women. It would be very important to get more men into preschool so that children at an early stage learn how men and women interact. They also get male role models. Today, in preschool specifically, they have almost exclusively female role models.

I am completely against, for example, using quotas to get more men into preschools. One simply works on creating the conditions. It is a long-term effort.

Hopefully, the Sweden Democrats will have influence over the government for a long time to come. Then we can ensure that we achieve these changes.

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

Sofia Amloh (S)

Mr. Speaker! I will begin by saying that I perhaps do not think it goes so fast, given what the member himself reports.

When it comes to what has been raised earlier in the debate in both statements and rejoinders, parental leave is precisely something that demonstrates that.

Before it was in place 50 years ago and before the changes that have been made since then, it is only the political decisions that have ensured that it becomes more even, even though we do not think it is even enough.

If it is to come naturally, as the member points out, I think we will have to wait a very long time. It might not even come at all. It would be terribly awful for equality and equality policy.

Then we would not have the freedom that it is about. It is that men and women can make life choices independent of gender norms or norms that govern and shape and set the framework for us.

It is they who need to change. Today, we do not think it is particularly strange that fathers are at home with their children. But when the reform was introduced in 1974, it was perhaps the strangest thing that could happen. There was an incredibly large opposition. I would say that perhaps in parts it still is. It does not go particularly fast, and political decisions are required.

If the Sweden Democrats are not prepared to break the norms by putting forward political proposals on important equality reforms, it becomes quite irrelevant for the Sweden Democrats to stand in this debate and claim that they want to achieve this freedom for both men and women.

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

Michael Rubbestad (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I perceive that the member and I are using the same arguments fundamentally but are drawing different conclusions. I also consider that it is going far too slowly.

I have read somewhere that at the current pace, we might have achieved an equal society in 120 years. That is obviously far too long away. We would need to achieve equality here and now.

If we look, just as was mentioned, at the year when Member Ciczie Weiby was born, 1974, we see that a number of reforms were carried out. Now, 50 years later, there is still a resistance.

The point of it is that we implement reform after reform, but norms and values do not change. Those norms still remain. It is going far too slowly. It has been 50 years, and there is still a resistance.

That is why the Sweden Democrats believe that we need to look at the issues in a completely new way. We must work actively to change precisely norms and values.

I believe that the member and I are fundamentally in agreement on that. We need to change norms and values. Then we have completely different views on how it should be done. But if we work actively on it, I believe we can achieve a change.

The work begins in preschool and continues into regular primary school and so on. It is important that we have good role models where men and women take equal responsibility and thereby show the opportunities that exist.

We will work on creating opportunities, conditions, and good role models. But I do not believe in forcing things, instead we must change it fundamentally. It is a task that takes time, but we must start somewhere.

Just having compelling reforms that people only get annoyed by has obviously not shown to help in the grand scheme of things. It helps the specific issue. But it has not changed norms and values.

If 50 years from now we still have a resistance to fathers being at home, we must try some new models. It is not impossible that we can combine different things.

I do not think that the member and I are far apart actually, even if it may look that way in a speaker's chair.

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

Gulan Avci (L)

Mr. Speaker! I would like to begin by moving for approval of the committee's proposal in the report and for the rejection of all motion proposals.

Then I must take the opportunity to say that it is very pleasant to stand in the speaker's chair in the chamber again – it has been a while since last time – and above all to be able to debate equality policy this evening. Those who have followed me in my political work know that I am passionate about just equality policy and how important Swedish equality is to me.

Mr. Speaker! The reason for it is very simple. Half of the population in our country consists of women. Unfortunately, there are still many battles to be fought today, in 2024, many injustices to combat, many rights to demand and new goals to reach for the equality policy.

Mr. Speaker! The debate today is perhaps more important than ever before. In just the last ten days, we have been struck by the brutal news that three more women have been murdered by a man who stood close to them.

We have also been reached by reports showing that gang criminals are now exploiting and selling women and girls to settle their dirty debts. It is most often women and girls who live in a state of lack of freedom with honor-related violence and oppression as an everyday reality, which means that they now live in double exclusion and double lack of freedom.

Therefore, I do not intend, Mr. Speaker, to devote my speaking time to talking about whether the previous red-green government did much or little for gender equality policy over eight years. I do not intend to devote the speaking time to pointing fingers at individual politicians. The questions we have to debate tonight are far too important for that. My focus will be on what this government, of which my party Liberalerna is a part, does to counter and combat men's violence against women and honor-related violence and oppression, which are two of our time's absolutely most important battles to take when it comes to gender equality policy.

But I must still say that I actually note with some surprise that the opposition parties have submitted reservations specifically regarding the honor repression. I think we did a very good job during the last parliamentary term when we cooperated to move the positions forward, and this government has taken the work further.

We can look at what the government has done since it took office just over 16 months ago. Just for this year, it has invested an extra 600 million kronor to strengthen the work against honor-related violence and oppression and men's violence against women. Equality Minister Paulina Brandberg has given several assignments to authorities to increase knowledge among professionals so that they can better understand violence and oppression where there is an honor motive. The Gender Equality Authority, the National Board of Health and Welfare, and the Swedish Police Authority have ongoing assignments that will make a difference regarding knowledge, response, access to protection and support, as well as the detection of vulnerability to violence for both honor-vulnerable girls and women as well as women who are affected by violence in close relationships.

The government is also working on developing an action program for the period 2024-2026 to ensure coordinated, long-term, and effective work to prevent and combat men's violence against women, honor-based oppression, and other violence in close relationships.

A seventh sub-goal for the equality policy was highlighted here. That policy is very important if one is serious about wanting to place honor oppression and honor culture, which is widespread in our country, at the center of Swedish equality policy. It is something that the Liberals naturally drive in the government.

With this government, we have also received a shift in perspective in the view of crime victims and perpetrators. An investigation recently submitted to the government contains many important proposals on more effective contact prohibition legislation and increased protection for crime victims. The investigation proposes, among other things, that contact prohibitions should be able to be issued in cases of improper surveillance, for example through GPS transmitters or apps, but also as a protection for vulnerable persons during legal processes.

More circumstances shall be able to be considered in the risk assessment in order to increase the possibilities of issuing a restraining order, even for the person who has never committed a crime before but who is now committing a violent crime against a woman.

The investigation also proposes that restraining orders can be issued in larger geographical areas. This could involve stay-away orders in an entire municipality. It is never the crime victim, Mr. Speaker, who should have to be forced to leave their home or their local area. It must always be the perpetrator who is forced away.

Children affected by violence shall have the right to a special representative in cases concerning restraining orders, specifically to serve the best interests of the child. We must never forget that children are also crime victims, regardless of whether they themselves are subjected to violence in the home or see their mother subjected to violence in the home.

All this is happening at the same time as the government tightens the penalties concerning men's violence against women, honor-related violence and oppression, and other violence in close relationships.

Mr. Speaker! I am proud of all the important work being done on a broad front to strengthen equality and combat injustices. But I am, of course, not satisfied. I will never be satisfied as long as women are murdered by their husbands, as long as girls and women in one of the world's most equal countries are forced to grow up under the honor oppression's hard iron grip, as long as women live in economic vulnerability that keeps them in destructive and dangerous relationships, as long as women are forced to take on the majority of the unpaid work for home and children, as long as women are discriminated against in the labor market because of their gender, as long as the norm is that it is specifically women who should work part-time, and as long as women, after an entire professional life, receive worse outcomes on the pension they are expected to live on.

For me as a liberal and a feminist, it is important to have several thoughts in my head at the same time, Mr. Speaker. We must have the ability to debate gender equality policy and what women face in the labor market, in society and in private life, but we must also have the ability to take the fight against medieval and unequal traditions that risk turning back the clock on what we have fought for for over a hundred years in this country. It is about the fight against honor-related violence and oppression, the fight against men's violence against women, and the fight for women's economic freedom.

There is nothing that limits a person's freedom as much as violence and oppression do. Therefore, violence against women in the name of honor culture is not only an equality issue but also a democracy issue.

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

Helena Vilhelmsson (C)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Gulan Avci, for an engaged speech! I greatly appreciate much of what the government is doing, not least the clarity when it comes to honor-related violence and oppression.

One thing I missed in the speech, and that was also the reason I requested a reply. I am thinking of the clear primary prevention work. It is not the case – we all know that – that one starts hitting when they are an adult and end up in a relationship. It is also not the case that young people wake up when they are 15, 16, 17 years old and think: Oh, today we are going to try hard sex! This comes from somewhere.

An organization and platform that has worked excellently with this is ungarelationer.se. We know that reports have come from Jämställdhetsmyndigheten and Allmänna Barnhuset that every third ninth-grader who has dated or had a romantic relationship has been subjected to violence by their partner – every third ninth-grader! Ungarelationer.se, perhaps the only organization of its kind, has done a fantastic job here. During the years they have operated, they have had over 15,000 separate chat contacts.

But now we stand here again - I asked the Liberals the same question last year - with a funding that totally fails. Ungarelationer.se has turned over somewhere around 5 million. This year, a decision has been received from the National Board of Health and Welfare for 500,000 kronor. I do not know how much the member knows about this, but I must ask: How does the member view this, and what is the member prepared to do for ungarelationer.se and similar activities?

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

Gulan Avci (L)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you for the question, Helena Vilhelmsson! You are addressing a very important issue. Macho culture is an incredibly large problem, and we know that it starts in school. Therefore, the preventive work in school is incredibly important. I would rather say that we must start as early as in preschool. It is there that one receives very many influences, it is there that the back-slapping among the boys begins, and it unfortunately follows many boys up into the years where they finally, in an adult relationship, subject a close partner to violence.

Equality Minister Paulina Brandberg speaks very much about how we must work preventatively, not least with sexual education and other important preventive work to reach out to young people and especially boys. I cannot answer directly how the appropriations look for this specific work, but what I do know is that the Gender Equality Authority has been given an important mandate to work in a targeted manner towards boys. If it is something we must do on a broad front and with the right focus, then it is to work with the important value base regarding boys' and girls' equal rights. We shall do this both in preschool and in school. There is, therefore, a very important work to be done here.

It is the municipalities that are the primary authorities for both of these activities, and I therefore believe it is important to review the governing documents for the preschool and the school so that there is clarity in how this type of activity is conducted both in the preschool and in the school.

(FIRST DEPUTY SPEAKER: I remind you that we do not use "you" in the chamber.)

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

Helena Vilhelmsson (C)

Mr. Speaker! I share the member's view regarding the policy documents and that one must naturally start in both preschool and school. I admit that my remark concerns a fire brigade call-out, and what I would very much like to send to the member and other government representatives is: Solve this problem!

We do not have these steering documents yet. If ungarelationer.se does not exist, young people will not get the support they need. I think reality is that harsh. Ungarelationer.se is fantastic, because it exists all over the country. You can call, and both boys and girls call there and get support. There is also a clinic, Ellencentret.

I have submitted a written question to the Minister for Equality regarding this. She is dodging it, of course, and argues that one cannot enter into agency exercise. That is true, but we know that ungarelationer.se has previously received grants directly from the government, sometimes via a mandate to the Gender Equality Authority, so it can be arranged again.

I am sending along that ungarelationer.se is a national interest in its finest form and has a very clear, well-founded result. They also produce a very large amount of pedagogical material, and the result shows, as mentioned, that they reach both young girls and boys.

My plea is therefore that the member and the government representatives really ensure that the issue of the national support line ungarelationer.se is resolved.

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

Gulan Avci (L)

Mr. Speaker! This question is important, and I take this with me. But I also want to emphasize that work on values needs to take place on a broad front. In my first contribution, I mentioned school and preschool, but it is also about important support to civil society, for example, women's organizations. This government has, for this year, increased the appropriations for equality work, not least the preventive work at different levels, by 600 million kronor.

When we talk about young relationships in the era and the contemporary time we live in, I also believe that we must start from a crime prevention perspective. We know that if we do not catch boys early, one or another risks becoming a perpetrator of violence. Many also risk ending up in criminal gangs.

We Liberals often say that the best medicine to prevent young boys from ending up on the streets is a good education. We are determined to continue investing in the school and ensure that children leave primary school with complete grades. We also need to bring in a broader perspective and a focus specifically on the preventive work with an important set of values concerning boys' and girls' equal rights.

The perspective of equality and equity is the basis for the very important issue that the member addresses here tonight.

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

Ciczie Weidby (V)

Mr. Speaker! In 1995, the government at the time appointed a women's power inquiry, which in 1998 published the final report Ty makten är din. Myten om det rationella arbetslivet och det jämställda Sverige.

The investigation found, 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 even those women who never have children or who have passed the childbearing ages pay some kind of "woman tax" in the form of lower wages and poorer career opportunities.

It is further noted that the public sector can be seen as somewhat more female-friendly in some respects than the private sector, but in other respects, it exploits women. 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.

Mr. Speaker! In summary, the Women's Power Inquiry showed a picture of a far from equal Sweden, and nearly 30 years later we can state that many of the problems that the inquiry addressed still exist and in some cases have even worsened.

It is not reasonable for women to be dependent on men for their livelihood. We in the Left Party naturally believe that women and men should have equal pay for equal work and a wage for the entire day. Everyone who wants to work full-time should also have the right to work full-time.

The pension system also reinforces the gender inequalities that exist in the labor market. Women have, on average, 70 percent of men's pension, and the difference increases with age. Very many women are forced to take out a guaranteed pension just to get by because 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.

I believe it is time to appoint a new women's empowerment inquiry that can provide a new perspective and propose concrete suggestions for increased equality.

Mr. Speaker! In today's Sweden, the class society has both color and gender. It has consequences for all aspects of life: where you can find housing, what work you can get and at what salary, what your state of health is, how safe you can feel in the public space and how long you are expected to live.

Life expectancy differs significantly between different areas in the country. In areas populated primarily by wealthy and Swedish-born people, people generally live longer than in areas dominated by foreign-born and poor people. In Malmö, the difference can amount to 7 years between different districts. In Stockholm, there is an 18-year difference in life expectancy between a low-educated person in Vårby and a highly educated person in Danderyd.

Vänsterpartiet strives towards a society where your gender, your name, the place where you were born, the place where your parents were born, and your parents' class background are not what should govern your opportunities here in life. We want a society where everyone has the same right to freedom, security, and a life free from oppression. We want Sweden to be permeated by all of these components, which are fundamental for an equal Sweden.

Unfortunately, that is not how it looks today. Instead, our society is characterized by deep injustices. While some become increasingly wealthy and gain more power, others are excluded and become increasingly marginalized. When the gaps grow, some are hit much harder than others. Class inequalities increasingly follow ethnicity and often interact with other power structures and grounds for discrimination, such as gender, religion, sexuality, and functionality.

Mr. Speaker! Racism comes in different forms and expresses itself in different ways. It varies depending on context and over time and space and is combined with other power structures and grounds for discrimination. Sometimes it is directed at more specific groups with their own history and their own background. Sometimes it is undefined as "the other," one can call it "immigrant" or "foreigner."

Not infrequently, racism is used to distinguish between different groups and preferably pit them against each other in order to create a split in society and weaken the bond between people. This split and exclusion suits the right perfectly. People who are marginalized and pushed aside become targets for exploitation, such as cheap labor, or for cuts, diminished welfare, and restricted rights. The attacks that at first are only directed at some of us spread easily and lead to a divided society if we do not stick together.

Therefore, we must see how the insecurity of the colleague, the classmate, or the neighbor is also our insecurity. We must see how the labor market is stratified ethnically and how class is increasingly linked to color.

Mr. Speaker! Equality data, sometimes called equality statistics, is information on how different grounds for discrimination, such as religion, skin color or ethnicity, are distributed in the population and how they interact with each other. The intention with this data is to investigate the occurrence and effects of discrimination.

Two-thirds of the world's countries already collect equality data, but Sweden lacks such statistics today. This obviously complicates the work of being able to map and work against discrimination.

Sweden is constantly criticized by the UN, the EU, and the Council of Europe for not collecting the relevant knowledge we need to be able to obtain statistics on the situation of different minorities. This has been discussed for a long time at the Equality Ombudsman in consultation with the Data Inspectorate, Statistics Sweden, and the Public Health Agency. The conclusion is always that equality data can and should be introduced and practiced more systematically even in Sweden.

Sweden is characterized today by growing divides. 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 or other belief. If we truly want to counteract this discrimination, racism and inequality in society, knowledge about the vulnerability of different groups is required. Equality data can give us exactly that knowledge.

Now I see that the Moderate who earlier this afternoon requested very concrete proposals on various measures has left, but I still want to point out, if it is the case that one looks at this speech in retrospect, that one can vote on reservation 19 in this report. It is also the reservation that I move for approval.

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

Helena Vilhelmsson (C)

Mr. Speaker! This report contains so many issues that are interesting to debate that I almost wish we had separate debates within this area! Unfortunately, I will also mostly confine myself to the question of violence by men against women. It is simply not possible to avoid it right now.

Just like last year, I begin by referring to newspaper headlines that we have heard about previously in the rostrum. During the Christmas break, three murders and 35 assaults occurred, reports the newspaper Veckorevyn. Then we know that the dark figure is large.

I jump to the latest week. Then we can count four murders of women - in Ronna, Stockholm, Borlänge and most recently Marks municipality. Or no, by the way: three murders of women and one murder of a girl. There has also been an attempted murder in Askersund in my home district.

Mr. Speaker! I have not tallied the number of murdered women this year, women who lost their lives in the place where they should have been safest - in their homes, many times in their beds, murdered by a man they believed loved them. I have not tallied the number, because it is so depressing. There will probably not be fewer this year than last year or the year before that or the year before that.

What is it that prevents this from becoming bigger headlines? What is it that prevents governments from inviting people to crisis talks about this? Where is the bill on safety zones for women exposed to violence? Where are the legislative proposals that guarantee a child's right to avoid contact with a violent parent? Where are the legislative proposals that guarantee that a woman exposed to violence can avoid contact with her perpetrator? What is it that prevents the police, despite investing resources in this year after year, from achieving better results than they do? And isn't it strange that one of the initiatives the police made, the Igor project, which aimed to get women to leave a violent relationship and which showed good results, was discontinued?

We know that the priorities are different. Not so that one should compare, but suppose there were four dead in gang shootings in a week.

Mr. Speaker! Recently, as we have heard here from the rostrum, an investigation was presented regarding possibilities to issue restraining orders more easily and efficiently. The Centre Party has previously proposed that restraining orders should be able to be issued not only against the protected person, that is, the woman, but also against the woman's relatives. Many are the cases around Christmas and Easter where the perpetrator stands and hangs around the place where the woman's relatives live in order to be able to meet the woman.

The big problem is that far too few restraining orders are issued. Today, it is almost exclusively if the man is convicted. In those cases, threats and harassment have usually already been ongoing for a long time.

There are some good proposals in the mentioned investigation, for example that a restraining order can apply to a large area, perhaps an entire municipality. But actually, there is something wrong here, after all. It is not the woman's everyday life that should be restricted, but the man's, the perpetrator's, everyday life. It actually doesn't matter if the man gets a restraining order around the woman's home and the children's school, because for everything that usually must, the woman has to leave that area for activities, visits, trips, or holidays, even outside the municipality.

If you ask me, I would say that the optimal thing would be to issue a ring around the man's residence and the man's job. That is where the perpetrator may stay. For why should the woman's freedom be restricted and not the man's?

Mr. Speaker! Back to the question of supporting women who want to leave a violent relationship! It is not something one does easily. Children, pets, housing, school, work – there are many factors that can keep a 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 when a woman says she is going to leave her partner. That is when the murders occur. Yet, today there is no unified exit program and no structured support for women who want to break up. Isn't that a bit strange, Mr. Speaker, especially considering that there are programs for men who are leaving criminal gang activity?

The fact is that 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, which includes interventions regarding housing, therapy, detoxification from drug addiction, employment, debt restructuring, and leisure activities. This is followed by a six-month long exit program so that the client can become more self-sufficient. There, my friends, you have an exit program for criminals!

A woman who manages to leave a violent relationship is offered, at best, 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 responsibility for moving, housing, school changes, rent, and all other costs. How can it be so?

Centerpartiet has, as stated, proposed a national exit program containing structured support including a monthly financial support - a fuck off-capital - as well as a national housing queue. These are proposals that can be launched in the relatively short term.

My question is what proposals the government has to support women who want to get out of and leave a relationship early, quickly, and in a structured way and save their lives. That is what can happen – if one does not get away from the violent relationship, there is a risk that one dies.

Here I would like to move for approval of reservation 6, which partly concerns a decommissioning program.

Mr. Speaker! Today, domestic violence and economic violence are also concepts that many are familiar with and use - but not to a sufficient extent, and many measures are still missing to eliminate this violence.

The most contributing factor regarding the aftermath of violence is the eternal custody disputes regarding joint children. We know that when courts rule in cases concerning custody, residence, and access, they do not to a full extent take into account that violence has occurred in the relationship or that a risk of violence may occur.

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 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. What other crime victims do we force into something such as that, into spending time with their perpetrators?

Mr. Speaker! The Tidö government often speaks of a paradigm shift and harsher sentences. It is certainly good, as some sentences absolutely need to be toughened. 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 never reach court. For these perpetrators of violence, it doesn't matter how much we increase the sentences.

That is why preventive work against all forms of violence in close relationships is very important. As I said earlier, the violence does not start all of a sudden when one is an adult and has a relationship, just as one does not suddenly wake up as a teenager and think "today we shall try to have rough sex." It comes from somewhere – an unstable upbringing, values, easily accessible violent pornography. Therefore, this must be addressed with preventive work already at a young age.

I have previously expressed my concern and fear that ungarelationer.se may not be allowed to continue its operations, because they are doing a fantastic job in this.

Recent research shows, among other things, the need for low-threshold support, which many investigations speak of regarding both young and older women in vulnerable situations who want out of prostitution. This target group needs low-threshold activities and low-threshold support such as a chat. This and the development towards more and more young people reporting that they have experienced violence in relationships makes it clear that more support and resources are required, not less.

I urge the government's representatives to support ungarelationer.se. It is what we owe our children and youth. No more murders of girls!

(Applause)

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

Jan Riise (MP)

Mr. Speaker! To the members of the House, I would like to say that this is a short version of what Janine Alm Ericson would have said if she had been here.

Mr. Speaker! Equality is fundamentally a question of freedom. Everyone should have the freedom to be who they are without being hindered by stereotypical norms and attitudes. Sweden has taken many steps towards equality and today is ahead of many other countries in the world. But there is still much to be done for Sweden to become a fully equal country.

Men's violence against women is one of Sweden's greatest social problems and must be countered with the same force as in the fight against gang crime. We must join forces and counter all forms of violence. Violence in close relationships can come in many different forms. The physical and psychological are well known to many, while economic violence has long occurred in the shadows. Now, that too needs to come to light.

During Miljöpartiet's time in government, a long series of measures were initiated to prevent and combat men's violence against women, but much work remains. Unlike the committee, I believe that the government can work even more actively in this area.

Firstly, more should be invested in violence prevention work, partly in the long term by working towards changing norms and attitudes, and partly in the shorter term through work directed directly at perpetrators of violence.

Secondly, economic violence should be categorized as a separate form of violence by men against women in order to better prevent and combat this form of violence.

Thirdly, investigations should be commissioned regarding economic violence and also the so-called post-violence with a mandate to map out how this manifests and to submit concrete proposals for measures to stop these forms of violence.

Mr. Speaker! Alongside the work against men's violence against women, society must do much more to stop honor-related violence and oppression. Many and important steps have been taken to strengthen the work against honor-related violence and oppression, but I can simultaneously state that there is much left to do.

Additional measures are needed, among other things, to ensure that society has the ability to act as early as possible. I therefore believe that the government should promptly take measures to ensure that all societal institutions have the competence to identify honor-based oppression and can act as early as possible.

Mr. Speaker! Discrimination is part of the everyday lives of far too many people and makes Sweden a worse country. It is important to continue to strengthen the work against discrimination, racism and segregation, and an important part of this is that discrimination must cost those who discriminate.

In order for us to have a society free from discrimination, the legislation needs to be developed where there are deficiencies. A broad investigation with a mandate to review how protection against discrimination can be further strengthened should be carried out. The legislation needs to be adapted so that it can be applied to a greater extent in cases of discrimination based on skin color, language, or religion. Part of the investigation's mandate should also be to consider introducing language as an explicit ground for discrimination.

Miljöpartiet has also highlighted the need for active measures against age discrimination.

Mr. Speaker! Sweden is characterized today by growing divides. Segregation and inequality are most evident in relation to the grounds of discrimination of ethnic origin, national origin or skin color and religion or other belief. If we are to be able to counter discrimination and inequality in society, knowledge of different groups' vulnerability is required. Equality data can provide us with more of such knowledge. The collection of data should be based on consent, voluntariness and anonymity and can, as a proposal, be handled by Statistics Sweden.

Mr. Speaker! Sweden is one of the world's most equal countries, but feminism has definitely not gone too far. There is much left to do, and time is running out.

I naturally stand behind all our reservations but choose to move for approval only to reservation number 3.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(The decision was to be taken on 21 March.)

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