Equality and measures against discrimination

Merit Frost Lindberg (M)

Mr. Speaker! I would like to begin by expressing my approval of the committee's proposal in the report.

I note that the speech I just gave on equality, where I mentioned antisemitism and Hamas links, provoked upset feelings. The Social Democrats spoke of swaying here in the Riksdag, and the Left Party took great offense.

I think it is good. If it is not the beginning of a change, it is at least a reaction, and that is exactly what we need. It must be an end to silent acceptance. I say: Antisemitism is spreading here in the Riksdag. Antisemitism is widespread here in the Riksdag. Does anyone care? Is anyone reacting? This is not even a normal debate anymore.

I will continue to speak. I do not intend to be silent.

The Government carries out the work for equality and against discrimination broadly. But in these times, there is a particular reason to emphasize the importance of the work being carried out to combat antisemitism and strengthen Jewish life here in Sweden.

When I grew up, one had to learn about the Holocaust. For me, it was something unimaginably cruel. It was almost impossible to understand that this had actually happened. I never—never—believed that in my adult life I would see that hatred spread again—in our time, in our country. Least of all did I believe that it would happen here in the Swedish Riksdag.

On October 7, 2023, a massacre occurred that not only shook the entire Middle East but also our entire moral worldview. Over 1,200 people were brutally murdered by Hamas in Israel. Women and children were raped, mutilated, and burned alive. The elderly and children were taken as hostages. It was not war. It was an antisemitic, bestial massacre – the worst massacre of Jews since the Holocaust.

Despite this, we have heard left-wing voices relativizing and talking about international law and even freedom – hardly a word about the rapes, the torture, and the hostages. For the sake of clarity: Hamas is not a freedom movement. It is an antisemitic terrorist organization that has one single goal, namely to annihilate Israel.

But this pattern is not new. Vänsterpartiet has never reconciled with its ideological history, which has led to death and torture for over 100 million people. There is a culture where antisemitism is not only tolerated but also excused.

When a Member of Parliament again spread gross anti-Semitic propaganda, it took a concerning amount of time before the party leadership acted, and when it finally did, it turned out that the Member of Parliament received great support. Since then, more Vänsterpartiet members have been exposed with similar actions. This is shocking. It is frightening.

Within the Social Democrats, we actually see similar tendencies. When one of their members participated in a Hamas-linked conference, he was defended by his party leader, who instead attacked the Prime Minister. There are a number of examples of how antisemitism has been silenced and relativized within the party – in the youth wing, in municipalities, and in external contacts abroad.

At the same time, the Center Party wants to appear as a moral alternative that does not cooperate with SD. But they see no problem whatsoever with giving influence to a party with roots in communism – an ideology that has repeatedly proven to be incompatible with democracy, openness, and individual freedom. Zero tolerance towards right-wing extremism is required – that is good. But left-wing extremism and antisemitism can apparently be tolerated.

There must be an end to this hypocrisy and this selective anti-racism. It is no longer possible to hide behind SD, but all parties must apply the same moral yardstick and, through action, stand up for their own values.

To hesitate is to give extremism legitimacy. It is time for all parties that have stood behind the corner for far too long and pointed at someone else to step forward.

(Applause)

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

Leila Ali Elmi (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I thank the member for highlighting that it is not possible to be selective in one's anti-racism. You are cooperating with a party that wants to dismantle the anti-discrimination laws.

The Sweden Democrats want to erode the Discrimination Act. They want to replace the seven statutory grounds for discrimination with a vague formulation regarding undue differential treatment. It sounds neutral, but this strikes out precisely the protection that exists for the people who are discriminated against the most. The seven grounds exist for a reason. They reflect structural inequality. They point to real power relations and to real obstacles in working life, healthcare, school, and the justice system.

To erase these is to turn a blind eye to what we know: that women are discriminated against, that racism affects living conditions, that hbtqi people do not have the same security as others, and that people with disabilities are made invisible. It is an ideological shift from a far-right party that you have chosen to become dependent on.

My question to the member is: How do you view the fact that your coalition partner wants to erode the Discrimination Act and make it totally ineffective?

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

Merit Frost Lindberg (M)

Mr. Speaker! The Member asked how I view our cooperation. We are, after all, pursuing our policy in the Moderate-led government. I have just highlighted some quite fundamental issues that it is important that we begin to talk about and address in here.

Each party is, of course, responsible for its own values and its own politics. I do not have insight into either Vänsterpartiet or Sverigedemokraterna. Nor do I wish to have it for that reason. But the difference I can nevertheless see is that Sverigedemokraterna, in cases where situations have arisen, have acted immediately and forcefully and distanced themselves, while Vänsterpartiet aligns itself with antisemitism. That is a considerable difference.

The committee has concluded that the anti-discrimination legislation functions in its current form. Laws will always need to be reviewed and be able to be updated, but the Sweden Democrats' motion shall be left to them. As stated, it has not been included in this report in the form of any amendments.

Additionally, I would like to pose a question back to the member. How do you view the parts I have just raised regarding antisemitism, discrimination, equality, and so on in Vänsterpartiet? Is it something the member wants to touch upon in some way – through some reflection or some thought? How does this square with democracy here in the Swedish Riksdag?

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

FÖRSTE VICE TALMANNEN

I want to remind both members that we do not use the word "you" as a form of address in the chamber.

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

Leila Ali Elmi (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I want to begin by saying that we agree that all parties in the Swedish Riksdag shall take a strong stand against antisemitism and clearly mark their opposition to it. On that, we have no differing opinions at all.

I think that what is happening in Vänsterpartiet is unfortunate. I assume that the party will handle it. I do, however, see Vänsterpartiet as a strong anti-racist voice in Sweden.

I want to return to my question. I experience that you are against selectivity but at the same time mean that it doesn't mean anything that the largest government party in your government base totally wants to dilute the discrimination act and remove the seven grounds of discrimination that protect the most vulnerable people in our society. When it comes to this, you think it can be okay and that it works – because you cooperate with them. I think you give a very unclear answer there.

Speaking of hypocrisy, it is very hypocritical to stand up against racism and criticize another party for it while simultaneously cooperating with a party that wants to erode the rights of a large majority of the Swedish people.

(FIRST DEPUTY SPEAKER: Once again, I remind you that we do not use "you" as a form of address, but we say either "the member" or the name. I believe the members are actually quite familiar with this.)

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

Merit Frost Lindberg (M)

Mr. Speaker! As I noted, the committee has chosen to reject the motions in the report. The member is drawing far-reaching conclusions from the Sweden Democrats' desires for changes. You can have that discussion with the Sweden Democrats. As I said: The motions being treated in the report are rejected. We cooperate in the areas where we get our policies through. When I mention values, there can always be different opinions on how a piece of legislation in the Discrimination Act should be formulated so that it protects in the best way. I have had no reason to question the basis of the Sweden Democrats' desire for equality and non-discrimination. They must answer for the specific changes they desire there themselves. I do not see that it is to be compared with the question of antisemitism and fundamental values.

(FIRST DEPUTY SPEAKER: I remind again that we do not use "you" as a form of address in the chamber.)

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

Sofia Amloh (S)

Mr. Speaker! I intended to devote myself to the matter we are debating today. We do this once a year. These are motions concerning equality, and there are many motions in that area. It is when it comes to discrimination that is quite well integrated under this report.

I noticed, Mr. Speaker, that the member did not actually mention anything of what is actually motioned in this report – and declared nothing about the government's policy, what is being done or wanted to be done in this area. For me, it is to actually push the important issues aside and focus on something other than talking about what we have allocated time to debate here today – including equality.

This government has also pursued an economic policy that shifts and exacerbates the economic differences between men and women. The member did not speak about it. I intended, however, to give her an opportunity to do so, Mr. Speaker.

I want to ask the member what exactly is being done for the hard-working single mothers who cannot make ends meet. Thousands of kronor are missing every month due to the government's economic policy. What is the government doing to support these hard-pressed households?

(Applause)

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

Merit Frost Lindberg (M)

Mr. Speaker! I am pleased that the member brings up this group of people. I myself grew up with a single mother who, despite working full-time, had to clean in the evenings. I had to start contributing to the family's household early, which at that time was quite burdensome. I therefore know very well how difficult it is to grow up in a family with small economic resources that never suffice.

This is also one of the groups that this government has really wanted to prioritize. We took over a situation with almost the highest unemployment in the EU and a dizzying high inflation – higher than Sweden has seen in many years. What we have prioritized above all else is to bring down inflation because it hits these groups the hardest. It has therefore been our absolute biggest priority.

There are many parts of the economic policy where our parties differ. I note that we truly care about the same group, but that we have completely different views on the way forward and how to make the situation better. The Moderates believe that people should have freedom and independence and not need to be dependent on benefits, while the Social Democrats always want to take the path of benefits.

We are talking about a policy for all of Sweden, but when I look at Stockholm – which the Social Democrats have noted is Sweden's shop window – I think it becomes very clear how the economic policy there hits exactly single women. Taxes have been raised, and the price of the SL card is being raised while the routes are changing and becoming worse. It hits exactly those women who cannot afford a car.

We have lowered taxes and in that way made it easier for these groups to manage and live on their own economy. Stockholm is a clear example of how badly things go when the Social Democrats take over the government.

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

Sofia Amloh (S)

Mr. Speaker! The government prioritizes the most vulnerable households, says Merit Frost Lindberg. I think it is very difficult to interpret what that prioritization actually looks like.

I can actually almost claim that the Moderaterna a year ago could stand here and say that they are being prioritized by retaining the extra allowance in the housing allowance. The situation looks even worse today. Alarm report after alarm report comes in that it has become even worse – even tougher. People cannot put food on the table, buy a winter jacket for the children, or pay for an organized leisure activity.

In that situation, the Moderaterna choose in their spring budget to remove that which has actually allowed the single mothers to survive – to keep their heads above water. Is that prioritizing the extremely vulnerable families with children? I actually think, Mr. Speaker, that it is literally putting them even further into the shit.

Mr. Speaker! It is completely obvious that we need to increase the purchasing power in this country. I can promise that mothers who receive an increased child allowance will buy new sneakers and that new spring jacket. That contributes to increasing the purchasing power in this country. If you lower the tax for those who have the most – for those who already have large margins – they will lock the money away in savings. That will not contribute to purchasing power.

If I look at the government's own ministers, I note that stock purchases seem to be something they are spending their tax-cut money on. It does not contribute to purchasing power.

(Applause)

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

Merit Frost Lindberg (M)

Mr. Speaker! I agree that it is a very difficult situation in Sweden today. We have, as said, had the highest inflation in decades, and the entire economy – including everything that has been there to handle from the US side – has been extreme. I truly feel for all the people who are having a very tough time in Sweden today.

The Government takes up the housing allowance. It was a temporary allowance, which we have removed. It is always a trade-off between priorities – that is what politics is about – and it will be followed how this impacts. But it is also here that the differences become clear regarding how we see how life should be good for single parents. It is not by being dependent on allowances.

The member also mentions the tax issue. We have lowered the tax; it is one of all the parts we have worked on to care for these groups. The member speaks about people who have money, but we have lowered the tax for ordinary people, such as nurses and teachers. Is it the rich people, does the member mean? We have lowered the tax for ordinary people with ordinary jobs.

Then one always wants to do more, but our priority has, as said, been the acute situation with high inflation. It benefits everyone, not least the vulnerable groups, that we have fought it. We have also succeeded in bringing down the petrol price, and those groups who have ordinary jobs have received a substantial tax cut. Then, of course, we work in several ways to get people into work. It is because many of those people are having a very tough time.

I think it is a bit presumptuous of the member to stand here and speak. How well is it working in Stockholm? Taxes are raised, SL cards are more expensive, and the traffic does not work. Is it an equal economic situation? Is it something you are proud of, Sofia Amloh?

(FIRST DEPUTY SPEAKER: Since it was a closing statement, we do not get answers to those questions – at least not right now.)

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

Ciczie Weidby (V)

Mr. Speaker! For new viewers, I can inform you that this was Merit Frost Lindberg's second speech, in which she essentially goes on the full attack against Vänsterpartiet and also lets other parties stand to account for something she levels accusations about. It is remarkable given that we are to debate completely different issues. We are to talk about equality and measures against discrimination.

Mr. Speaker! It is not antisemitism to clarify and make visible what is currently happening in the Gaza Strip. When IPC, which measures famine, states that the entire Gaza Strip is currently being starved to death and when various disaster doctors go there and say that it is a death camp, it is not antisemitism to demand that Israel stop bombing and start letting in aid.

The member also suggests that Vänsterpartiet should look back at its history and so on. Then I become curious if the member can, for the first thing, comment on the Moderaternas history. The party was actually formed to counteract universal and equal suffrage. For the second thing, I would like to know why it is completely worry-free to rave about and embrace the Sverigedemokraterna, which was formed out of a hatred towards Jews.

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

Merit Frost Lindberg (M)

Mr. Speaker! Yes, what can one say? Antisemitism is widespread here in the Riksdag. Surely the member must also be able to state that.

I mentioned the history because I think it is far too often forgotten, while the history of other parties is constantly brought up. I think it is a somewhat strange situation. But the most serious thing of all is what is happening here and now. As I said earlier, the difference – at least from the outside based on what I have seen from the Sverigedemokraterna, without having insight into either your party or theirs, Ciczie Weidby – is that the Sverigedemokraterna have nevertheless distanced themselves from things that have come up. They have done so powerfully and quickly, and members have been expelled.

In Vänsterpartiet, it is actually the opposite. Members and party representatives here in the Riksdag who express gross antisemitism receive broad support from the entire party, or at least from very large parts of the party. It is happening here and now. Is that not something the member sees as serious and very unpleasant? I mean that it is a threat to our democracy, and it is ongoing now.

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

Ciczie Weidby (V)

Mr. Speaker! Does the member know what is also happening here and now? There are leading Sweden Democrats who constantly tweet and express hatred towards Muslims and who say that Jews or Sámi people can never become Swedes. That is also happening right here and now, but the member chooses to completely turn a blind eye to it. Instead, she puts all her strength and energy into other parties.

Nowhere in this chamber has any member of the Left Party made an antisemitic statement. Nowhere in any debate has any member defended Hamas. On the other hand, it has been pointed out what is happening terribly in Gaza and that an occupation of the entire West Bank and Gaza is ongoing. That is a completely different matter.

Then the question remains: What does Member Merit Frost Lindberg consider acceptable from her own comrades? That is one thing.

The second thing I wonder is what measures the government intends to take to counter discrimination of, for example, people with different disabilities who need different types of help and support. It can, for example, be about guide dogs not being allowed into different places, which diminishes these people's opportunities to live a full life. How does the government intend to work against different forms of structural discrimination of people with disabilities? This makes it so that they often have difficulty entering the labor market like everyone else.

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

Merit Frost Lindberg (M)

Mr. Speaker! This is a report where both discrimination, racism and antisemitism are included as parts to discuss.

The member is now doing exactly what I criticize. She is constantly trying to direct the eyes toward someone other than herself and is constantly pointing at SD; that is exactly what the member is doing here again. Why can the Left Party not, for once, just stand for its own values and what is actually happening here?

What the member said about that no antisemitism has ever been expressed or that there have been no connections to Hamas is also not true. It is simply not true – we see more and more examples. People demonstrate under Hamas flags. It was expressed that freedom is finally coming for the Palestinian people in connection with the mass murder in Israel. There are countless examples. I find it distressing that this is being silenced and that one actually does not fully stand for the politics and the values that one has in Vänsterpartiet.

There has been silence about this for far too long among several parties. C is proud that the party does not want to cooperate with SD for reasons of values. At the same time, C has supported parties such as Vänsterpartiet, which has a clearly widespread antisemitism within its party. I do not understand how the member can stand here and deny this. It has even been highlighted by the party leadership that they have a matter to handle where there are very different opinions within the party. It is, nevertheless, a reality that we have all become aware of.

I think the situation we have here in the Riksdag is frightening. I hope that more parties are prepared to start talking about this and take action.

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

Sofia Amloh (S)

Mr. Speaker! Today we are debating a report concerning equality and measures against discrimination.

Sweden is a multicultural country where a significant part of the population has a foreign background. Within this diversity, there is great potential in the form of people who want to contribute to making Sweden a stronger society, but for this to be achieved, equality and inclusion in the labor market and in school are required.

Structural discrimination, particularly linked to ethnic background, is still a major and growing obstacle that we see. It is not only the employers or the school that should bear the responsibility for the serious signals regarding how widespread everyday racism is. The entire society needs to consistently put a stop to racism. We cannot have any tolerance whatsoever for discrimination, regardless of where it comes from.

The government promotes racism and discrimination that daily normalize and shift the boundaries of racism. This is done, not least, by representatives with seats in this chamber.

Mr. Speaker! All six political equality goals are interconnected. The sub-goal concerning economic equality is, however, completely fundamental to achieving success regarding the other sub-goals. The goal of economic equality is about being economically independent and having the right to shape one's own life.

The SD government's economic policy hits women above all else. 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 relative.

The recession and the government's policy are hitting Sweden hard. Ordinary households are being pressured by high prices on food and housing. Food prices have increased by 25 percent in three years, and rent increases are at historical levels. At the same time, real wages have been eroded. Sweden has an economic growth that is among the worst in Europe – compared to all others living with the same economic environment, circumstances, and uncertainty – and an unemployment rate that is record-high.

Instead of tackling these concrete societal problems, the government chooses to burn billions on lowering taxes for the very wealthiest while child poverty is spreading. Extremely serious reports are pouring in from countless civil society organizations warning about how economically disadvantaged many are.

Those who have it absolutely toughest are single mothers. It is about thousands and thousands of hard-working women who can no longer manage financially. These are mothers who are care assistants, nursing assistants, or shop employees. They do everything in their power to cover their most basic expenses. They have long since used up their small savings. They have sold their jewelry, toys, and clothes – everything that can be sold on, for example, Blocket. They have stopped eating until they are full. They cannot put their children in an organized leisure activity.

Mr. Speaker! One can imagine the lump in the stomach if someone needs medicine or glasses or needs to go to the dentist. There are no financial margins left. Several thousand kronor are already missing every month. Then you can just imagine the panic if the person were to fall ill and need to stay home from work. This is not decent in a rich country like Sweden. It does not only make Sweden poor but also a more unequal country.

Mr. Speaker! The ultimate consequence of an unequal society is violence and oppression. Every three weeks, a woman is killed by a man, and more than one rape is committed every hour of the day, all year round. The Crime Prevention Council also estimates that over 80 percent of violence against women is never reported to the police. How can this be allowed to continue? It is so incredibly many women and girls who are subjected to this oppression, this terror, and this lack of freedom.

On January 6, 2024, Gina was murdered in her own bedroom. After years of violence, she was finally stabbed by her husband. This occurred after her husband had been arrested for the fourth time for assault against her. But while awaiting indictment, he was released and managed to take her life. During the trial, a ten-hour recording made on a mobile phone during the day Gina was murdered was played. What is heard is ten hours of pure and utter terror.

Gina is not alone. This is not a unique example or something unusually extreme. This is something many women are subjected to, and when society fails completely, women are murdered by someone they once loved. Every murdered woman is a gigantic failure and a major setback in the struggle for an equal society free from violence.

In the police's annual report for 2023, the police stated that they had failed in their work against men's violence against women. At that time, we Social Democrats demanded that the government appoint a crisis commission to combat men's violence against women. That same week, three women had lost their lives. Now, one year later, the police state that more women's lives could have been saved if the police had made more reports of violence. The SD government did not think a crisis commission was needed, and they seem to believe that none is needed now either.

We must under no circumstances accept that the police fail year after year in the fight against men's violence against women. Therefore, it is time for the government to immediately comply with the Social Democrats' demand to appoint a crisis commission. If one has government power, one also has a responsibility. I therefore ask the government to stop dodging. Straighten up and take responsibility! It is time to appoint a crisis commission before more women are harmed.

Mr. Speaker! I am deeply outraged and profoundly saddened when municipalities cannot afford to place women in sheltered housing, when women are not taken seriously, and when the police do not prioritize their resources to protect women from being subjected to violence or murdered. I am equally outraged and saddened when women are forced to go into debt up to their ears to pay running expenses 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 this continues and the government does not take measures that are offensive enough, it is a betrayal. We Social Democrats will never accept this. More must be done. I urge the government to make more of an effort.

Mr. Speaker! I stand behind all our reservations, but for the sake of time, I move for approval of only reservation 5.

(Applause)

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

Camilla Rinaldo Miller (KD)

Mr. Speaker! For the audience, I want to say that the Committee on Employment and Labour is currently debating equality and discrimination.

I vote in favor of the committee's proposed decision in the report and against all motions.

Mr. Speaker! In all politics conducted, regardless of the area, there must be an unwavering focus on the equal and inviolable value of all people. It is not just a formulation in the constitution; it is a compass, a direction, and a duty. For us Christian Democrats, this is the very starting point for all our politics. We believe in the unique and inviolable value of the human being, in taking responsibility for one another, and in a society built on solidarity, care, and justice. That is why we stand up for equality and against all forms of discrimination.

Discrimination affects many. Some examples are women, people with a foreign background, LGBTQ people and people with disabilities. However, one group is often forgotten in the discussion – a group that carries our society but is quietly pushed aside. I am talking about the elderly.

Research shows that many employers are reluctant to hire people over 55 years old, even though these individuals often have extensive experience, work ethic, and stability. A report from the Delegation for Senior Labor shows that older job seekers in Sweden have more difficulty finding jobs than younger people with similar qualifications. Older people are sometimes seen as too expensive, too tired, or not sufficiently flexible. This is not only a waste of resources, but it is also deeply undignified.

We need a shift in attitude in the working life so that experience is valued as highly as innovation. The government has therefore taken an initiative to strengthen the position of the older workforce, including through investments in lifelong learning and support for transition for older workers. But more must obviously be done.

The Christian Democrats want to counter age discrimination through sharper legislation and educational initiatives among employers. We want to make it easier for older people to pursue further education and change industries, and we want to create incentives for employers to retain and recruit senior competence.

In a society where people are getting older, we cannot afford to close the door to the labor market for those who have turned 60 – or 50, which is where I myself fall. It is not only illogical but also unjust.

Mr. Speaker! The discrimination does not only hit the elderly. It also hits people because of where they live. It is, of course, about healthcare and whether you can get fast help and the right treatment in time. Today, it is not the need that determines what care you receive, but the zip code. If you live in the wrong region, you have to wait longer, perhaps for too long. It is unacceptable. Therefore, we in Kristdemokraterna advocate for equal care to be provided throughout the country, not different care depending on where you happen to live, not a patchwork of 21 different systems.

We want to nationalize healthcare step by step, to ensure a care system governed by the patient's needs, not by organizational boundaries or ancient systems. You shall have the right to good care, regardless of whether you live in Stockholm, Sollefteå, Kiruna, or Lycksele. That is justice in practice. That is equality for real.

Mr. Speaker! Back to what discrimination is: We know it is when people are treated unfairly because of something they cannot influence, such as skin color, religion, gender or background. As we now debate discrimination, I cannot overlook the development of increased antisemitism that we see in society today. As everyone in here probably knows, the word antisemitism means hatred and prejudice against Jews, for the sole reason that they are Jews.

The book you are asked to tell about is about what people are capable of doing to other people when democracy's values are broken down and replaced by the ideology of hate and violence. Based on World War II, the book describes what happens then. How many times have we not said "Never again"? Perhaps it is time that we read the book again. That Jews living in Sweden are subjected to hate and threats and do not dare to move freely out of fear of being subjected to violence, we must never accept. There, we all have a responsibility!

Mr. Speaker! We must never accept that people are judged because of gender, age, ethnicity, functional variation, or place of residence. I say it again: the Christian Democrats believe in every person's unique and inviolable value. We believe in a society where everyone counts, a society where everyone is allowed to participate and contribute, and everyone receives care in time. It is our duty. It is our conviction.

But beautiful words are not enough. Action is required, and that is something the current government takes seriously. Since 2022, a number of important initiatives have been implemented or initiated to combat discrimination and promote equality. I will mention a few examples.

The government has increased support for civil society organizations working against racism, homophobia, and other forms of intolerance. It has strengthened initiatives for women's safety, including increased resources for the justice system, to combat men's violence against women. The government has also commissioned inquiries to improve employment opportunities for persons with disabilities and to break the exclusion among young people and foreign-born individuals.

We shall continue to work together against discrimination and for equality – an equality for real, for all people's unique value.

(Applause)

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

Leila Ali Elmi (MP)

Mr. Speaker! The Sweden Democrats want the compensation for discrimination to be lowered. They argue that the compensations do not reflect the general sense of justice. But what does that actually mean? Is it that a woman who is denied a job because she wears a veil should not receive proper redress, that a student who has been bullied because of their disability should not receive proper compensation, or that a homosexual person who has been fired from their job should not be entitled to more than an apology?

Damages are not just about money, it is about justice, responsibility and a clear stand against abuse. To lower the compensations is to say that discrimination is not that serious.

The Christian Democrats often speak about human dignity – the member also mentioned it in their speech – and about the inviolability of the individual, but your government base now wants to erode the possibility for the vulnerable to have their rights upheld. My question is: Do you stand behind the Sweden Democrats' view that it has become too expensive to discriminate against people?

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

Camilla Rinaldo Miller (KD)

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

A wish would have been that one should never be treated in a way that requires one to demand damages.

My, our party's and the government's concern today is all women with an immigrant background who stay at home but who have the opportunity, knowledge, and education that enable them to participate and contribute. That they cannot enter the workforce is a very great concern for me.

When it comes to the fact that one needs to demand damages for having been ill-treated, we want it to never have to go that far. The government has now introduced an action program where it truly tries to find all possibilities to rectify the discrimination that we have seen ongoing for a long time. People are subjected to discrimination for various reasons, as I listed earlier.

I want to see a piece of work where we address this and where damages do not need to be paid out, but there must still absolutely be a possibility for that when something happens.

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

Leila Ali Elmi (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I think it is insensitive to talk about human dignity when one is simultaneously cooperating with the Sweden Democrats, who actively and systematically work to erode the rights of the people you are highlighting.

I know many veiled women who have a law degree but who are not getting such jobs due to discrimination, and now the Sverigedemokraterna want to make it even more difficult for that group. I know hbtqi persons and people with disabilities who are vulnerable.

You are aware that this issue exists in our society. We cannot wish it away. Your cooperation with the Sweden Democrats legitimizes their view of humanity. The Sweden Democrats are the largest party in your government base. Is it not hypocrisy of the member to say that you stand up for human dignity while simultaneously cooperating with the Sweden Democrats?

(FIRST DEPUTY SPEAKER: I remind again that one shall not use "du" as a form of address in the chamber.)

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

Camilla Rinaldo Miller (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I just want to emphasize that previous government collaborations have shown that it does not matter how large the party is. A small party can also cause a lot of damage and introduce policies that are bad for a country. We saw that during the last parliamentary term, when Miljöpartiet was part of the government basis. It therefore does not matter.

I will never back down on all people's equal and inviolable value. As a Christian Democrat, I will stand firm. When it comes to cooperation, I have been struck by the fact that it seems as if the infection can only go in one direction. If it were the case that the Sweden Democrats can only have a negative influence, which they absolutely do not have, it is strange that I, as a Christian Democrat, can never have any positive influence. I want to believe that both the Liberals, the Moderates, and the Christian Democrats can have a positive influence. The Sweden Democrats do too.

The infection, as said, does not only go in one direction, but we will influence so that we together work for better equality in Sweden and a better opportunity to escape discrimination.

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

Sara Gille (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I would like to begin by moving for approval of the Sweden Democrats' reservation number 2.

Then I would like to announce that my party colleague Ann-Christine Frohm will speak about the issues of discrimination in this debate. In my speech, I will focus on the gender equality policy and the shortcomings and changes that we see there.

The Sweden Democrats stand for a view on equality based on the individual's rights, obligations, and opportunities. We believe that women and men should have the same chance to shape their lives without politicians interfering in how they live, how they distribute responsibilities at home, and which professions they choose. We believe in freedom, not in coercion or quotas, and we clearly say no to the left-wing feminism that tries to force a mold on people for how an equal life should look.

Sweden has come a long way when it comes to formal equality. But there are still injustices, and there are still structures that we must dare to challenge – not least the structures that have been allowed to grow in silence, outside the framework of the Swedish value system.

At the same time as Swedish equality policy over decades has focused on gender roles, parental leave distribution, and gender distribution in the boards of listed companies, we have seen a development in parts of society that goes in the exact opposite direction. Girls and women today grow up in areas where freedom is not taken for granted, where their choice of clothing is controlled, where their social interactions are monitored, and where loyalty to the family's honor takes precedence over their own will.

This is the greatest betrayal of Swedish gender equality policy – especially during the previous government, which for eight years spoke about equality but turned a blind eye to honor cultures, allowed female genital mutilation to continue, and prioritized LGBTQ+ certification over women's safety. They let cultural relativism and identity politics stand in the way of defending girls' right to freedom. They were more afraid of being called xenophobic than of girls being subjected to gender norms that belong in religious dictatorships.

Mr. Speaker! Here, the Sweden Democrats have been the only consistent voice. We have long warned against this development.

We have long demanded an equality policy that does not only apply to certain women in certain neighborhoods with a certain background. We demand that every girl in Sweden shall have the same rights regardless of whether she grows up in Dorotea or in Rinkeby.

That is why we support the government's initiative to include the fight against honor-based oppression in the gender equality policy.

That is why we support initiatives for education within social services and schools to detect female genital mutilation, forced marriage, and virginity norms.

That is why we say that the Swedish state must never turn a blind eye to oppression in the name of religion or culture. Equality is not an option. It is a fundamental right.

But it is not just about oppression in extreme form. It is also about safety in everyday life, about the right to go home from work without being afraid, and about the work environment in female-dominated workplaces being as prioritized as in male-dominated ones.

For many years we have seen how the women in the welfare sector have to carry a heavy burden without receiving the recognition they deserve. They are nursing assistants, childcare workers and healthcare assistants – women who carry the welfare but who are often forgotten.

We have, budget after budget, highlighted the demand for better conditions, and together with the government, we have begun to turn the development. Funds have been added to improve the working environment in female-dominated occupations, and investments have been made to combat involuntary part-time work.

Another important part is the view on women's and men's opportunities in professional life. The Sweden Democrats are opposed to gender quotas, not because we are against women's success, but because we believe in more than gender. We believe in competence. We want people to be judged based on what they can do, not what gender they have. Introducing quotas means forcing people into roles where they have not chosen to be. That is not equality. It is steering.

We also mean that politics should not interfere in how families distribute their parental leave. It is not the state's task to decide what is fair between two parents. It is the family's responsibility. That is exactly why we oppose the political micro-management that has been guiding Social Democratic-led policy for decades.

Mr. Speaker! Equality for us does not mean that women and men must live identical lives. It means that every individual shall have the same opportunities to make free choices, that women are not discriminated against, that men are not collectively blamed, that boys in school are not seen as problems already at the age of seven, and that girls in their teens are not forced to prove their innocence before their relatives.

It is this totality we must speak of when we say equality – a policy that is capable of seeing both the woman's right to protection from violence and the boy's right to support in school, a policy that dares to say that women should be able to reach the top but also be allowed to rest at the bottom without shame, and a policy that is free from moralizing and guardianship.

Mr. Speaker! For years, the work on equality has been hijacked by gender educators, norm-critical consultants, and activists with a left-wing agenda. Politicians have spent tax money on gender analyses in municipalities while women have been abused in the home. People have talked about power structures in theory while we talk about safety in reality.

Now we are cleaning up. We are no longer spending tax money on gender-neutral dollhouses or LGBTQ certification in healthcare. We prioritize safety, protection, and freedom. We have broken the silence on honor oppression and moved equality policy from ideological workshop to real change.

Men, Mr. Speaker, much remains. Girls are still oppressed. Women still live in fear. And as long as others prefer to talk process than take responsibility, we will continue to push forward.

Equality is a promise – a promise that gender shall never stand in the way of freedom, safety, and self-determination. That promise has not yet been fulfilled. But we are on a good path, and for every step we take from symbolic politics to real change, the closer we come to a Sweden where women and men live as free and equal individuals. It is that Sweden we fight for.

(Applause)

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

Sofia Amloh (S)

Mr. Speaker! After listening to the member's speech, the question arises: What have the Sweden Democrats done to contribute to Sweden being one of the most equal countries in the world? Sweden has, for decades, held a top-three position as the most equal country in the world. I can reflect on the fact that we may have lost positions since the Sweden Democrats entered the Riksdag, but I still want to know which reform the Sweden Democrats have contributed to make Sweden the most equal country. What do you have on your CV?

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

Sara Gille (SD)

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

Yes, we have done significantly more than the Social Democrats did during the eight years you were in power. We have pursued this policy for many, many years while you had eight years and got nowhere.

Now, together with the government, we have actually come significantly further in a shorter time than you have ever done, so I think you should look at yourselves. What have you yourselves achieved, and is it more than what we have achieved during our time?

We have achieved significantly more than you have. Girls are being controlled and beaten, and you have only talked about safeguarding equality. When it came down to it, it was just empty words, so I want to pose the question back to the member. What did you do during your eight years?

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

Sofia Amloh (S)

Mr. Speaker! Now, my question was what the Sweden Democrats have done so that Sweden should be one of the most equal countries in the world historically. As far as I know, the Social Democrats have at least had something to do with the matter in government over the last hundred years. We have nevertheless carried out a number of reforms and been involved and contributed to the development that has given Sweden a leading position in this. That we are now backing away is what concerns me.

The answer I get from the member is that she is shifting the blame. I hear no concrete proposals that have actually been implemented. It is very sweeping from the member. If so much has been done that has made such a big difference, one could well present a list here for us.

The member points out in their speech, which is also very sweeping, that the working environment for women has been improved. I am, however, reached by figures and reports, and I am not alone in this, that stress-related illnesses are now increasing more than ever, at an incredibly rapid pace.

What exactly does the member mean by saying that you have improved the working environment for women? I can vouch for the fact that many women out there experience that it has not become better. The member is given a chance here to tell all those women who live under these extremely tough working conditions what has been improved in their working environment.

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

Sara Gille (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I can start by saying that we are cleaning up after you, quite simply. That is what we do.

We have criminalized certificates of innocence. We have tightened contact prohibitions. Why did the Social Democrats not implement this when you actually held power? Why did you not manage to do it? Everything that we are now achieving, all the reforms and everything that we contribute, why did you not do it when you sat in power? You had the chance.

I also assert that our views on equality are totally different. But we do significantly more than you have ever done.

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

Helena Vilhelmsson (C)

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

I perceive that the member, in their speech, talks about values, among other things, which I like. I did that in my entire speech in the previous debate – values, shifts in perspective, and such things. I am, however, sometimes surprised by the mocking tone when the discussion on values is linked with derogatory formulations about identity politics, as if what the member calls identity politics and discussions on values were to stand in opposition to legislation.

It sounds to the member that the Sweden Democrats have indeed now entered the corridors of government and that things are now happening, that is to say, laws are being enacted. But we all know, I hope – which I spoke about in the previous debate – that it does not help to enact laws if people do not know what the reason is and what problem they are to address.

The Sweden Democrats and many others, actually the entire Tidögänget, often talk about kitchen table decisions. The kitchen tables are sacred. I will be clear: It is naturally at home that the decisions should be made. But how has it turned out? What does the result look like? Have the kitchen table discussions and kitchen table decisions led to an equal uptake of parental leave? Have the discussions at the kitchen table led to girls and women being able to live as they want in vulnerable areas? Have the discussions at the kitchen table led to girls and women choosing exactly the education they want and exactly the profession they want?

There is a lot of talk about politicians having spent money on gender analyses. We also spend money on an insurance system regarding parental leave that, in the long run, disadvantages women by 4 million kronor – at least – over a lifetime. It is state money. It is our tax money. What does the member think about this?

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

Sara Gille (SD)

Mr. Speaker! First and foremost, it takes a very long time to clean up after previous governments' failed policies. It is nothing that happens overnight.

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

Helena Vilhelmsson (C)

Mr. Speaker! I want to emphasize that Member Sara Gille and I are fundamentally in agreement on this. We often talk about how we are to address men's violence against women and, above all, honor-related violence and oppression. I just want to send along: Do not pit these things against each other! Do not pit what one mockingly calls identity politics and value discussions against concrete legislation here in the chamber, because both are needed!

We will not get anywhere by just creating harsher punishments and enacting new laws. We need to put our finger on what is really needed and what really brings about change. Then perhaps it is so that the message of politics must be formulated in a different way so that it actually reaches the kitchen tables. It is not done just through legislation.

I look forward to us continuing this discussion. I believe we can get far if we cooperate instead of discussing what was done during the last, the previous, and the one before that parliamentary term.

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

Sara Gille (SD)

Mr. Speaker! It is not about pitting them against each other. It is about highlighting something that not many others dare to talk about.

I agree with the member that we have nevertheless had many constructive discussions and from time to time actually shared the same view. I appreciate that.

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

Camilla Mårtensen (L)

Mr. Speaker! As a liberal, I believe that the individual is the smallest and most important component of society. The individual is always more important than the collective, and all people have the right to be treated as individuals and judged based on their own merits. Liberals can never accept discrimination in any form. It goes against our entire ideology.

To be treated poorly because of gender, age, sexual orientation, functional variation, or any other ground of discrimination is to be deprived of a part of one's humanity. Everyone should be able to shape their own life, and this applies throughout life. All of us should be treated for who we are and not based on what year we were born.

Discrimination can never be accepted, neither in the pub queue nor on the labor market. The World Health Organization, WHO, has stated that ageism is stronger in countries with high prosperity. In that category, Sweden qualifies and is in no way an exception.

Mr. Speaker! The Equality Ombudsman described in its annual report for 2024 that age discrimination linked to working life is common at all ages, even though there are more negative attitudes towards older people. Today's legislation is good, but historically, far too few cases have been tested. Therefore, it is pleasing that the Equality Ombudsman now aims to bring more cases to trial and in that way establish precedents.

Age discrimination is a widespread problem in the Swedish labor market. A study from the Plus Commission shows that Swedes perceive that a clear line is drawn already at 50 years of age. After that, interest from employers drops significantly. One no longer receives feedback on their application, and employment interviews do not materialize. At the same time, more people aged 65+ want to continue working after retirement age, and the labor market is crying out for competence.

Sweden stands out negatively in international comparisons. If you are looking for a job in Denmark and are between 55 and 74 years old, you have twice the chance of getting the job as if you were seeking the same job in Sweden.

40 percent of those over 65 who continue to work are not employed but are self-employed. Starting your own business is often the alternative that remains when you have not received an answer to the hundreds of applications you have submitted.

The vast majority indicates that ageism is an increasing phenomenon. What can then be done to utilize this untapped resource that is referred to as golf courses, book clubs and yoga classes with self-actualization goals? If the legislation exists but it is rotten attitudes and preconceived notions that rule, more cases must be examined by the Equality Ombudsman. This is being done now, and it is a step in the right direction.

We must conduct the debate here in the chamber and also out in society. The views of both employers and employees must change. We must question recruitment firms staffed by 25-year-olds who perceive everyone approaching 50 as uninteresting and filter them out in the first screening.

The employers brush it off and say that they look at all applications and claim that their problem is finding competence. At the same time, we know that age discrimination exists and that all contacts with employment agencies show that it becomes harder to get a new job or even to be called for an interview as soon as you have turned 50. It cannot be prejudices that govern the recruitment processes, and the employers have the primary responsibility to change attitudes and expectations.

Mr. Speaker! In 1913, the Chamber decided on a retirement age of 65 years. At that time, the average life expectancy in Sweden was 56 years. Much has happened, but the employers still act as if we are at the beginning of the 1900s. We Liberals want the possibility of being employed to be linked to average life expectancy, and it should not be your years that determine how long you can or may work, but rather you, your competence, and experience. The retirement age and the right to remain in the working life shall be linked to the development of average life expectancy. We all want the working life to be sustainable and become longer, but then age discrimination must cease once and for all.

With this, I vote in favor of the committee's proposal in the report.

(Applause)

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

Leila Ali Elmi (MP)

Mr. Speaker! When Richard Jomshof tells an elected Member of Parliament to go home, it is not a question of careless word choice, but it is a deliberate racist statement and a use of language with a long and established history within the far-right. "Go home" is never harmless, but it is a way of drawing the line for who is considered to belong and who should be kept out.

When we who sit in the chamber are told that we do not belong here, when will we be Swedish enough? The Liberals have not marked themselves with a single word, despite that the Liberals in every other issue claim to be the guarantor against precisely racism, right-wing extremism, and the erosion of rights. How long can one call oneself a liberal and at the same time turn a blind eye to what a partner in cooperation does? How long can one stick one's head in the sand and deny that one legitimizes the racism one claims to want to counteract?

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

Camilla Mårtensen (L)

Mr. Speaker! I thank you for the question.

Once again, I stand here in the speaker's chair to comment on the opinions of other parties. I consider myself a bit too good to do the same to you in Miljöpartiet, who now also have problems with your coalition partners.

We in the Liberals will never accept that the grounds for discrimination are changed, that such degrading and racist statements are made, regardless of whether one is a Sverigedemokrat, Vänsterpartist, or Socialdemokrat. It is uninteresting.

But it also cannot be that it is the Liberals' responsibility to take a stand every time. I know that we do not have a joint statement, but I cannot say that none of my capable colleagues who work with these issues have been out and taken a stand. I do not dare to answer that. But that type of language use is reprehensible. That is what I think and the Liberals think.

My question to Leila – excuse me, my question to the member – is the following. Have you and your party been out and marked your position regarding the antisemitic statements that members from some of your coalition parties have made in the debate?

(FIRST DEPUTY SPEAKER: I remind again that we do not use "you". Ambitious attempts were made to avoid it, I noticed – but nevertheless.)

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

Leila Ali Elmi (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I thank the member for her answer. I will begin with the last thing you said.

Both wings of Miljöpartiet have clearly signaled on the issue, namely that we do not accept antisemitism.

I return to my question.

Mr. Speaker! I direct my question to the Liberals because of the cooperation you have with the Sweden Democrats. That cooperation legitimizes the racism that the Sweden Democrats stand for, namely that one of their highest representatives expresses themselves in a grossly racist manner regarding another elected member. This is fundamentally deeply problematic, but that the Liberals do not take a stand is also deeply concerning.

Where is the Liberals' limit? What are your red lines? When is one Swedish enough?

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

Camilla Mårtensen (L)

Mr. Speaker! I am a bit confounded by the question. It is well clear that one is Swedish if one is a Swedish citizen, if one has a residence permit, if one lives and is raised in Sweden – if one feels Swedish and follows the laws and rules that exist in this country. I cannot imagine that the Liberals have said anything else.

The second question concerned where our red lines are. These are gladly discussed by other parties. I want to refer to previous speakers, namely that we are not infected by the opinions of other parties. The Liberals and liberalism are deeply rooted in the idea that discrimination or racism should not occur, but we have also shown that in issues that are important to us, we can cooperate with parties where we do not agree on everything. Thanks to a political majority, we have succeeded in carrying out many things that we have not succeeded with previously.

There will be a seventh sub-objective regarding issues of honor violence and honor oppression. It has been completely impossible in previous constellations. There will be major investments in schools, a changed grading system, and an energy policy that holds together. These issues are important for the Swedes and our voters. But that does not mean that we are infected by the opinions of individual members or, for that matter, entire parties.

The Liberals stand firm, and we cooperate on the issues that we believe are necessary for Sweden and for us to move forward.

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

Sofia Amloh (S)

Mr. Speaker! As we have mentioned earlier during the day, and I mention it again, we Social Democrats, in connection with the serious situation a year ago, submitted a proposal to appoint a crisis commission. We submit the proposal again, and we remind that it will require a crisis commission where we sit down together with experts from women's shelters and authorities. The police report again that mistakes were made, and there are deficiencies in the police's meetings with women in vulnerable situations, that is to say, domestic violence. As recently as last week, the police stated that lives could have been saved if the deficiencies had not existed.

It is good that the shortcomings are coming to light, but then we must act on them. Therefore, I have a question for the member: You were not in favor of a crisis commission and did not think it was necessary a year ago. Does the member think it is necessary with a crisis commission now, or should we wait even longer before we act?

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

Camilla Mårtensen (L)

Mr. Speaker! Member Amloh, I noted in Aftonbladet yesterday that your spokesperson for gender equality indeed demanded a crisis commission. But I do not see him in the chamber today. The question is how important it actually is for you.

The short answer from us regarding this is: No, we do not need more pamphlets, political meetings or ideas. What we need is for there to be workshop work within our agencies that actually makes a difference.

I see that the kind of cooperation required between authorities, where things fall between the cracks, is now being initiated. Authorities have also been tasked to actually resolve this.

I do not believe that a crisis commission is the answer or the solution to the problems we have. I want to pose a counter-question to Sofia Amloh. What would a crisis commission do that we cannot do in our operations today through cooperation, other than for us to be able to bask in our glory politically and invent new meetings to attend? Where will the real workshop be with a crisis commission?

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

Sofia Amloh (S)

Mr. Speaker! Perhaps that is exactly the question: Where is the actual workshop? I wonder what the government is doing right now about what emerged last week, other than oohing and worrying that it is bad. What is being done? What concrete action will I see presented tomorrow based on what has emerged?

Mr. Speaker! A year ago, they said no to a crisis commission. I actually do not see the big difference. And now I also do not see what the concrete measures are.

I see that the places in the women's shelters are becoming fewer and that only one in five women who need sheltered housing receives it. Something is missing here, Mr. Speaker. I therefore wonder what the government is doing about it in a purely concrete way when it does not want a crisis commission.

In a crisis commission, one gathers the relevant authorities and everyone who is considered an expert in the field and brings in women's shelters and organizations that know about this and are experts in the field. They have a number of proposals that can be acted upon here and now. The Police, the Prosecution Authority, and a long line of other authorities would need to talk to each other.

To begin with, the police would need to raise this as a prioritized issue. When it comes to gang crime, however, people are prepared to do whatever it takes. Then, people are prepared to appoint groups, councils, and so on to prioritize it. The police themselves say that this has the lowest priority. It is completely unacceptable.

How are we going to get the government to realize that this is a major societal problem that needs to be prioritized? Why do the Liberals not want a crisis commission when it is obvious that it is necessary?

(Applause)

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

Camilla Mårtensen (L)

Mr. Speaker! A crisis commission is just for show. The big difference occurs when the authorities cooperate.

The National Police Commissioner had a meeting just three or four weeks ago together with the Director of Public Prosecutions, where several authorities were called in to see how they can move forward with this. The Police Authority is making major changes in its way of working. And the Minister for Equality has on several occasions called in our civil rights organizations and other social actors to discuss how we can move forward.

No, at the national level, we have not convened a crisis commission where we will sit together and look at what we can do. This is already being done in the work at the agency level, by our contractors.

It is a problem that fewer people are getting space at women's shelters. It is a problem that fewer children are coming there. But there is not a lack of places generally. We are, however, reviewing what we can do so that the places are distributed in a better way. That work and that evaluation is being carried out by the National Board of Health and Welfare. It is in the regulatory letters from the government.

So, work is ongoing without us convening a single additional political meeting.

(Applause)

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

Ciczie Weidby (V)

Mr. Speaker! Equality is not a special interest. It is a question of justice, of democracy and of power. Vänsterpartiet is a feminist party. We know that equality does not arise by itself. One must fight for it. It must be decided upon, it must be financed and it must be implemented.

In Sweden, women still earn less than men, despite equal education. Women work part-time more often, bear a greater responsibility for unpaid home and care work, and have significantly lower pensions. Women are hit harder in a healthcare sector that is understaffed, in a school system where care is being pushed out, and on a labor market where security is being eroded.

These are not coincidences. They are, of course, consequences of political decisions. Therefore, the Left Party argues that in an equality policy that truly challenges the gender power structure that permeates our society, one must

introduce a full-time norm, so that the part-time trap does not continue to cement women's subordination in the labor market

individualize the parental leave, in order to create truly equal parenting

expand the childcare system

improve women's health, especially in maternity care

stop men's violence against women through increased resources for women's shelters, preventive measures, housing priority for women exposed to violence, and a justice policy that takes women's safety seriously.

But the bourgeois government, with the support of the Sweden Democrats, chooses to pursue an economic policy that hits hardest against single mothers, against healthcare personnel, and against other low-income earners. These are groups where women are quite often in the majority.

Instead of equality, this government prioritizes tax cuts that benefit high-income earners, who happen to often be men, and privatizations that erode the welfare state. An equal society requires political courage. It requires investments, and it requires a feminist policy that puts people's living conditions ahead of market logic.

Mr. Speaker! I would like to take this opportunity to move for the approval of reservation number 11.

Guide and assistance dogs are not pets. They are aids and a vital support for people with various disabilities. They are trained to create independence and security in everyday life. Therefore, they also have a special right to be in environments where dogs are normally not allowed – hospitals, various shops, restaurants, and public transport. It is a prerequisite for people with just assistance dogs to be able to live an equal life and participate in society on equal terms.

Mr. Speaker! Those who still watch linear TV or are met with advertisements in other ways have surely seen that MFD, the Agency for Participation, currently has a campaign where it is demonstrated that many owners of guide and assistance dogs still experience major obstacles in society. It can be precisely that refusing to let the dogs in at restaurants, at gyms, and in taxis. So that, of course, should not be the case.

It is a clear sign that the legislation we have is not strong enough in practice. We must do something about that. The Government should really review the legislation, whose purpose is to strengthen precisely the possibility of bringing leadership and assistance dogs where they are needed. It is a matter of accessibility and equal treatment but above all about human rights.

Mr. Speaker! In 2015, lack of accessibility was introduced as a form of discrimination in the Discrimination Act. It was a very important step. But unfortunately, there are still serious deficiencies in terms of how the law works in practice.

Vänsterpartiet argues that it is high time to carry out an evaluation of the law's application, especially with a focus on disability as a ground for discrimination. It is very important that the good intentions that existed when the law was adopted also have a real effect in people's everyday lives.

Mr. Speaker! A society where all people, regardless of functional ability, language and background, are given the opportunity to participate and be heard is a stronger, freer and more democratic society. I truly hope that this government can come forward with proposals for an inclusive Sweden where discrimination is countered in law, in practice and in people's everyday lives.

Mr. Speaker! It is often said that Sweden is one of the world's most equal countries. But when you scratch beneath the surface, you quite often see something else. We see how people are treated differently depending on gender, skin color, religion, functional variation, sexuality, or socioeconomic background. Discrimination exists all the time – in the working life, in healthcare, in school, and in the justice system. But we actually do not really know what the discrimination looks like, and that is because we do not measure it.

Knowledge is required. How can we talk about equal opportunities to jobs, housing, or health if we do not know what it actually looks like? Today, we lack, for example, statistics showing how common it is for people with a foreign background to be discriminated against in the labor market or how access to care differs between groups. We know that there is an inequality, but we completely lack the tools to do anything about it.

Mr. Speaker! I am, of course, speaking about equality data, which already exists in very many countries and is used to detect discrimination, target interventions, and evaluate reforms. It is not about registering people by ethnicity or belief, but about collecting voluntary and anonymous data on how people experience their everyday lives in order to better be able to protect their rights.

But in Sweden, there is a strange silence. The fear of dividing the population has, in practice, instead become an obstacle to countering racism and discrimination. I mean that we must dare to see these structures in order to be able to change them.

Equality data is a matter of justice. They are a tool to make reality of the rights that actually exist in the law and an important piece of the puzzle in the fight against the class society, against racism, and against the unequal distribution of power we have in society. If we mean it when we say that all people have the same and equal value, we must also be prepared to collect the knowledge that is needed to ensure that.

Mr. Speaker! Instead of accounting for what different measures one has against, let's say, Islamophobia, the Moderaterna, the largest party in the government, choose in this debate to defend, for example, SD, whose high-ranking representatives in the party and minute violate and make racist remarks against, among others, Muslims. Less than a week ago, a member wished that one of my party comrades should go home.

The Moderates are therefore choosing, in this debate which is about equality and discrimination, to talk about the Left Party's history. But one forgets to mention that at the time when the left and the Social Democrats fought for universal and equal suffrage, the Allmänna valmansförbundet was formed in order to counter this and preserve conservative values. And at the same time as the united left engaged against apartheid in South Africa, they consistently refused to support the ANC and stood very close to South Africa's regime, even though they have tried to edit that history in hindsight.

Mr. Speaker! I would have really liked the largest government party to have taken this debate a bit more seriously and treated the proposals on measures against discrimination and for equality with more gravity. I can only hope that there will be a bit better quality of work on that in the next debate.

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

Helena Vilhelmsson (C)

Mr. Speaker! In this debate, we are going to talk about equality – perhaps not with a focus on men's violence against women, for that we talked about in the previous debate – and measures against discrimination.

First, I would like to take the opportunity to comment on the fact that representatives for the Moderaterna have on several occasions claimed that the Centerpartiet is out in some kind of murky waters and insinuated that we support groups that support Hamas and the like. It makes me wonder what the purpose actually is. I have said it before here in the speaker's chair, and I say it again: the Centerpartiet cooperates with different parties in the committees and here in the Riksdag, just as one does. The Moderaterna have also always done so, even when they have sat in opposition. When it comes to organized cooperation and collaboration, the Centerpartiet was involved and entered into the January Agreement. The Moderaterna have been involved and entered into the Tidö Agreement. Who is it actually that associates with parties that have murky waters, questionable objectives, and questionable ideology? It would be pleasant if the government parties could talk about their own policy instead.

I want to start by talking about goals and methods for achieving equality. Governments have, for many decades and under different administrations, pointed out gender mainstreaming in agencies as a successful method. It is about a gender equality perspective being present in all decision-making, at all levels and in all steps of the decision-making process. One must systematically make visible and analyze what consequences different proposals have for women and men respectively.

How does it look this year then, Mr. Speaker? Well, this year, all of a sudden, mentions of gender equality integration have disappeared from the regulatory letters of over 40 agencies – poof, gone! This is remarkable. The Government has decided that work shall be done on this at an overarching level. Everyone shall do it. But it does not stand in the regulatory letters.

When I ask the government about this, they answer: It is okay – it does not need to be included. We can talk about gender equality integration in so many other ways, and we discuss it in dialogue with the authorities. Okay, I think then – then one could, in principle, in both theory and practice, also strike out mentions in the regulatory letters about diversity and inclusion or about breaking up gangs and working against crime. We can also discuss that with the authorities every time we meet them.

This is a way of speaking that suggests one does not consider gender equality integration to be something important. This is not just my assessment. The Director General of the Gender Equality Authority said clearly and distinctly in the committee: If you have no assignments in the regulatory letter, you have nothing to report when the year is over.

Mr. Speaker! The Equality Ombudsman is an incredibly important authority in these matters. In the various reports from DO, it is described that discrimination occurs throughout society, but that it is clear that the risks of discrimination are particularly large within the working life and in school. That school is mentioned hurts extra, because all children must be in school five days every week. Then we must be able to offer a safe school and a safe everyday life for our children and young people.

If one reads different cases that the Equality Ombudsman deals with or works on, one realizes what an incredibly complex task it is. It involves reading, evaluating, taking part in, and assessing documentation and conversations on behalf of the victim, for guardians, for teachers, for principals, and for the perpetrator. Often, it is word against word.

But our basic position must remain firm. No child and no youth invents that they have been called the n-word or other deeply offensive epithets. Sometimes one receives explanations from the heads of schools in the vein that they have a pride week every year – as if that were an effective measure against offensive treatment in middle school. One can also hear schools say that as part of combating sexism and offensive expressions, they have had a lecture with Nina Rung. Then one understands, Mr. Speaker, that we have concerns, because the problems go much deeper than that.

One thing that is good as stated in the report is that the government has tasked DO with developing and disseminating knowledge about the vulnerability of Afro-Swedish students to racism and discrimination. The reasons are that it is assessed that over 20 percent of the reports received in recent years have concerned ethnic origin in primary school and upper secondary school and concern Afro-Swedish students and students who are racialized as black.

That is why the Center Party believes that DO's mandate needs to be changed so that the agency can act more actively against discrimination and, among other things, perform spot checks and be able to pursue far more individual cases against individual citizens than it does today.

Finally, a few words on economic equality. The question of wage differences between women and men and the need for measures to reduce the pay gap is constantly relevant. We must get to the bottom of what lies behind the so-called unexplained pay gap. Some work is being done, but not enough.

For the third year in a row, my friends, wage inequalities are increasing, after the gap has slowly but surely narrowed for decades. What is happening?

The salary mapping that all employers are obliged to conduct within the framework of the work on measures according to the Discrimination Act is very important. The Mediation Institute's work is extremely important for collecting statistics, compiling and interpreting our reality. But more was needed here as well. Information was needed that reaches the kitchen table, my friends.

We know that the parental leave is the single largest factor for why women and men have a difference in lifetime income of over 4 million over a lifetime. There is a study that was conducted by the banks. Parents open savings accounts for their sons earlier than for their daughters. How can that be?

We need smart, effective and solid information about economic equality and economic security early in our lives. With today's system with AI, all authorities should work with nudging, that is, informative questions so that one can make well-founded choices.

It is super effective when it comes to, for example, parental leave. You type in how you intend to solve it. What effect does it have when I become a retiree and am about to start drawing my pension? More authorities should absolutely work with the system of nudging.

Mr. Speaker! I move for the approval of reservation 19.

(Applause)

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

Merit Frost Lindberg (M)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, the member, for the speech, which contained several good parts!

What I want to bring up is what the Moderate-led government stands for and stands up for. It is equality and everyone's equal value, nothing else.

We do not defend any expressions of racism or antisemitism regardless of where they come from. This applies regardless of whether they come from the Left Party's side, SD's side, or from anywhere else. I want to clarify that with clarity.

What I noted was that the expressions we have seen from SD that in some way have approached racism or antisemitism have been, from what I have seen, forcefully distanced from by the party, and members have been expelled.

What I also noted was that in Vänsterpartiet it has been the opposite way. The antisemitism that we have seen has, on the contrary, received widespread support within the party. It is actually a significant difference.

I mean that we shall powerfully counteract and combat all forms of racism and antisemitism. But it must apply to all parties and not just one. Until now, there has been a very large focus on one of the parliamentary parties while others have been given free rein to let such evil forces act without it being questioned.

That is what I am requesting. I mean that it is time for every party to stand for its own values and stop pointing at someone else all the time.

My question to the member is: Does the member see no problems with the antisemitism that we have nevertheless clearly seen in Vänsterpartiet and the broad support that exists for this and with cooperating with such a party?

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

Helena Vilhelmsson (C)

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

It is good to know where the Moderate-led government stands on these issues. I have never doubted it. I have said and say again that I think the debates should be about the government's policy versus the opposition's policy.

What I objected to in my speech, when we stood on opposite sides here in the speaker's chairs, was that the Moderate-led government or the Moderate member had dragged the Centre Party over some kind of line and had opinions about what we had said or had not said.

Now the member stands and says that is not the case. We are to speak about our own policy. I welcome that. I wish that the Moderate member did that every time.

I have said it before, and I say it again. Centerpartiet is against all forms of antisemitism. We are against all forms of racism. We stand for that, and we take a stand against it.

We have signaled against the Left Party's antisemitic statements. We have commented on the Sweden Democrats' racist statements. We have always done that. But here we are going to speak about racism, equality, and discrimination.

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

Merit Frost Lindberg (M)

Mr. Speaker! I would still like to mean that antisemitism, racism and contacts with Hamas are about precisely these issues.

I state once again that we have a widespread antisemitism here in the Swedish Riksdag. For me, it is shocking and frightening.

I would like to have answers to: Which parties are prepared to stand up powerfully against this, and not just quietly let this happen and point fingers at the Sverigedemokraterna?

It is about taking a powerful stand against this in relation to all parties. There is no party that is to get away with this, not the Sverigedemokraterna and not the Vänsterpartiet.

I also do not think one can say that one is taking a stand against racism and antisemitism if one then cooperates with parties that support such groups and have members who stand for such values.

My question is: Is the Centre Party, together with the Moderates, prepared to stand up for human rights, women's equality, and everyone's freedom?

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

Helena Vilhelmsson (C)

Mr. Speaker! When it comes to the question of whom one is prepared to cooperate with, I refer to what I said at the beginning of my speech.

Who is it that has an organized cooperation with different parties today? Is it the Tidö parties? Yes. The organized cooperation that the Centerpartiet has entered into since I entered the Riksdag has been the January Agreement, period. I hope that the discussion can end there.

The Center Party takes a strong stand against antisemitism here in the Riksdag, out in society, and everywhere, just as we have strongly distanced ourselves from racist statements that other parties have made.

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

Leila Ali Elmi (MP)

Mr. Speaker! In Sweden, all people shall have the right to be treated with respect, to be protected by the law and to be seen as full members of society regardless of who one is or where one's parents are born.

But that is not how reality looks. When a mother calls the police because her 14-year-old son Mohamed has disappeared, the police joke about "calling in their best Somali." They mock, they laugh, and they humiliate. Three days later, Mohamed is found dead, kidnapped and tortured to death in a forest outside Nyköping.

This is not just an individual tragedy; it is structural racism. It is what happens when racism is allowed to shape the treatment from an authority whose mandate is to protect everyone. The police are not a neutral institution. They reflect the norms, values, and priorities we as a society establish. When mockery and contempt are allowed to pass without consequences, it is not only people's trust that is undermined, but the entire legitimacy of the rule of law erodes.

It is not only in encounters with authorities that the discrimination is noticeable. An experiment recently showed that three black guys were only allowed into one of eight nightclubs in Stockholm, while their white peers got into seven. It is 2025, but skin color still determines how we are treated.

Against this reality, the Sweden Democrats stand with a policy that actively weakens the protection against discrimination. They want to erase the seven grounds for discrimination—gender, ethnicity, religion, disability, sexual orientation, gender identity, and age—and replace them with a vague formulation regarding improper differential treatment. Sweden's grounds for discrimination do not exist so that people should be categorized, but because these forms of inequality are historically and structurally conditioned.

Mr. Speaker! We see it when women who wear a veil systematically receive fewer responses to job applications despite equal or higher competence than other applicants. We see it when persons with disabilities are filtered out in recruitments, not because they lack qualifications but because employers perceive adjustments as an obstacle. We see it when trans people are met with suspicion or ridicule in contact with authorities or healthcare personnel and are thus prevented from receiving help on equal terms.

Discrimination is not isolated incidents; it is structures. That is exactly why the seven grounds were needed in the legal text. They help us identify when patterns emerge and to make visible which groups are repeatedly excluded or devalued. Without these grounds, the analysis disappears and, consequently, so does the legal protection.

SD: SD's proposal to replace the foundations with a vague concept of differential treatment shifts the entire perspective from system to individual and from structure to misunderstanding. It is a strategy and a conscious shift. It is precisely through these small, seemingly technical changes that great values are dismantled. That is how it looks in Sweden and globally. One moves slowly but deliberately away from equality as concrete policy.

The Sweden Democrats criticize the levels of damages in cases of discrimination. Their argument is based on individual cases where a person who was subjected to discrimination received higher compensation than a woman who was subjected to violence. But they do not question that women subjected to violence receive too low damages; they question that someone else is entitled to redress. Instead of demanding justice for more, they demand justice for some.

The problem is not that damages for discrimination are sometimes high. The problem is that damages for violence against women are too low. It is a consequence of precisely that inequality that the Discrimination Act seeks to counteract. It is not the discrimination compensation that should be lowered. It is the legal system's view on men's violence against women that must change.

Mr. Speaker! Miljöpartiet clearly says no to SD's erosion of the anti-discrimination protection. We know that justice does not arise by itself. It requires political courage and concrete action. Therefore, we want to tighten the sanctions against employers who discriminate, introduce the possibility of anonymous job applications, and make anti-racist work mandatory in public activities.

We want the Equality Ombudsman to receive increased resources and more regional offices so that people across the country gain access to legal protection. We want to task the Equality Ombudsman with auditing the justice system so that we can expose and address racism where its consequences are most dangerous.

The Discrimination Act is not just a symbol. It is one of our most important tools to ensure that equality does not stop at principles but permeates everyday life at work, in school, in healthcare, and in the courtroom.

Mr. Speaker! To stand up for the equal value of people is not just to be woke, it is to be democratic. It is to take responsibility when some lives are valued lower than others. Then we must dare to see it, say it, and change it.

Every time a person's rights are eroded without us reacting, the boundary of what we accept is shifted. Every time we let discrimination pass, society becomes colder and less secure. But it also means that every time we take a stand, fight, and speak out, we defend what is most fundamental in a democratic society: the equal value of all people.

Mohamed's mother deserved to be taken seriously. Her son deserved to live. All young people growing up in Sweden today, regardless of background, deserve a society where their safety, freedom, and dignity must never be questioned.

With that said, I move for approval of reservations 4 and 16.

(Applause)

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

Ann-Christine Frohm (SD)

Madam Speaker! Today we are discussing report AU10 on equality and measures against discrimination. I will focus on the issue of discrimination, which is my area of responsibility.

I move for approval of the Sweden Democrats' reservation 14, where we propose a general wording regarding undue preferential treatment instead of pointing out certain groups, as is done today. When one points out certain groups, it means that others are left behind. And everyone should be included, quite simply.

Madam Speaker! When Sweden adopted the UN Declaration of Human Rights, the point regarding discrimination based on political opinion was omitted, even though that ground for discrimination was also included in the European Convention. Nor does the non-discrimination act apply to hate crimes or discrimination against us Swedes as a group.

This has meant that all kinds of epithets and condescending treatment of Swedes have escalated and been allowed to continue completely without action. One cannot help but suspect that there was precisely such an agenda with the measure. It is completely unacceptable and at the very least derogatory; everyone who has been subjected to what we today call reverse discrimination knows this.

It is about Swedish youths who have been assaulted and subjected to being urinated on – a despicable act that has been committed against them just because they are Swedish. Society has left these poor children and youths completely without redress. That is not how the rule of law in Sweden should function.

To all of you who have been subjected to discrimination and hate crimes simply because you are Swedes – Swedes in your own country Sweden – I want to send a message: We see you, and we hear you! You can count on us, because we stand on your side.

Madam Speaker! For a long time, the word discrimination has been used to highlight how an individual perceives themselves as disadvantaged due to negative differential treatment. The reason is often stated to be gender, ethnicity, or religion.

In a series of notable judgments from DO, a clear pattern is visible: the individual's right to act in the way that he or she finds appropriate takes precedence over all other important fundamental principles. A case that was recently highlighted concerns a Muslim man who was not called to a job interview because he declared that he did not intend to marry women. The Discrimination Ombudsman gave the man the right. According to the authority, this was a matter of indirect discrimination, and there are a number of other rulings that have gone in the same direction.

Madam Speaker! Just over nine years ago, the Social Democrats' then party leader Stefan Löfven stated as follows: "In Sweden, people greet each other. One takes both women and men by the hand." Since then, the Social Democrats have taken the left turn very much and have been driving into the ditch for a long, long time. That is what happens when the government base consists of left-liberals. That was the case then, and that is what will continue to happen if the Social Democrats regain power.

To acquit a person who refuses to take a woman's hand just because she is a woman, in order instead to convict a company that stands by its principles, is telling of today's social climate, a climate that for a long time has been permeated by the idea that it is we who were raised here and who see Sweden as our home, and that our companies and our customs should be adapted to those who have come here.

But it is precisely the opposite. This development is harmful for several reasons. On the one hand, it rewards people who refuse to see the point of adapting, which in turn hinders integration; on the other hand, it causes people who have come here with a background completely different from the Swedish one but who are truly struggling to adapt to be distrusted.

The perceived discrimination inflation that we have unfortunately seen escalate in Sweden over decades is counterproductive. The outcome is that the people whom the discrimination left says it wants to protect instead become part of the crowd that has to take the biggest hits.

Madam Speaker! If people adapt, if people truly want to and show it and if one is prepared to put the will to succeed ahead of the will to run their own race, then Sweden is one of the countries where one can truly succeed. There is no structural discrimination that prevents this. It is a pure invention.

There are absolutely situations where prejudices cloud some form of reasonable position. But there are no patterns in that. There is no chain of discriminatory behaviors. All of that is a political construction built by a desperate, watered-down left in retreat, a left that is constantly struggling to chisel out new problems with the sole purpose of making themselves relevant. If the problems do not exist, we must create them, seems to be the left's guiding principle.

Madam Speaker! The truth that is beginning to dawn on more and more people is that the left-wing politics that have been pursued in this area have been devastating on several levels. It has been costly and inhuman. Instead of bridging gaps, it has widened them. It has created discord and division when what we have truly needed is unity and community.

We need to change, and we need to do it right. We need a fair system where the motto "Do your duty before you demand your right" is the guiding principle and where actually we Swedes also count when it comes to the left-wing cliché of everyone's equal value. Then we can start talking about everyone's equal value for real. Shouting "Discrimination!" or "I am offended!" should no longer be rewarded.

It is about common sense. It is about justice. It is about understanding that it is not the majority culture that should adapt to the minority, but rather the opposite. That, Madam Speaker, will be a small step forward for the Swede, and it will be a big step forward for the majority society in Sweden.

(Applause)

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

Michael Rubbestad (SD)

Madam Speaker! In April this year, I participated in the UN Commission on the Status of Women in New York, CSW. Accompanying me on the trip was the then Equality Minister Paulina Brandberg. It was only a few weeks before she was to leave her post, but of course, it was nothing that I knew about at that time.

When we stood in line at Arlanda, I told them that I had switched committees from the Committee on Employment to the Committee on the Constitution and that I was no longer working with equality issues. Then one of Paulina's colleagues or fellow travelers said something that stuck with me: You don't need to worry. Once you have started working with equality issues, you won't stop. They sort of stay with you.

And it is true. Even though I am now scrutinizing whether a minister actually said "shall" or "can," or whether a post on social media was right or wrong, I continue to follow gender equality issues with a very great interest, and that is why I am here today.

I would also like to take the opportunity to thank the former Minister for Equality, Paulina Brandberg, for the conversations and the work we had together in our respective roles. We may not always have agreed on the issues, but there is no doubt whatsoever that we both have a strong commitment and a genuine desire to improve equality.

Equality is not a task that one simply stamps off at the end of the working day. For me as a father, it is crucial that my two daughters grow up in a society where their gender should not determine whether they succeed or not. Their future shall be based on their achievements in school, their competence, their own will and drive to reach their goals.

My responsibility as a parent is to give them the best possible conditions. I do that, hopefully, through good upbringing and sound values and by strengthening their self-confidence and self-esteem. The very last thing that should play any role at all is what gender they happen to have.

But unfortunately, reality does not look like that today. When I became the gender equality spokesperson for Sverigedemokraterna, no one asked what background or experience I had, or what work I had done previously to fit the role. No, what I was told was: But you are a man! What do you know about what it is like to be a woman?

Equality is, however, not a women's issue but an issue that affects us all. An equal society benefits both women and men, but then we must also pursue a policy that truly improves equality. We shall not stare blindly at gender, but we shall create fair conditions.

We are currently seeing that equality is receding globally, which several have pointed out previously. That should give us pause for thought. What does that say about the politics that has dominated for several decades?

From the left side of Swedish politics, there is a desire to solve these deficiencies through various forms of coercion. It is quotas, earmarking of parental days, demands and regulations. But as soon as such legislation is removed, the effects plummet again. Why? Well, because nothing has changed fundamentally. People do things because they have to, not because they truly see women as equal and equivalent.

We must build a society where outdated views on women belong to history. We do not do that with coercive laws. We do that with good upbringing, strong role models and knowledge. It is about creating conditions, not controlling outcomes. I have said it so many times before in this speaker's chair: Stop staring blindly at the outcome! Look at the conditions!

Here my concern is truly awakened. It seems as if the Sweden Democrats are very alone in still defending the principle of meritocracy, that is to say, the right person in the right place, regardless of gender. A majority stands behind so-called positive discrimination – or in plain Swedish, quotas – without seeing what problems are created when equality is reduced to pure outcome issues.

When a person applies for a job, the employer looks at the CV. If it matches what is requested, the person is called for an interview. Reasonably, the most suitable candidate is then given the position. It must still be secondary if the gender distribution in the workplace is skewed. The right competence must come before the right gender.

I raised an example in a previous equality debate here in the chamber regarding the Social Democrats' local ballot in a Swedish rural municipality. The chairman of the association – an experienced politician and a well-known face – was placed quite far down on the local ballot. At the top stood a person completely without political experience, newly moved in, and even a new member of the party.

I became a little curious, so I naturally asked why. The answer was clear. The person I mentioned is a man, white, middle-aged and heterosexual and therefore by definition all too privileged. Such a person was not considered capable of topping the list, as it would send the wrong signals. Instead, top candidates were selected based on gender, background and sexual orientation – all without or with very limited political experience. It was not about ability. It was about sending the right signals. Diversity was allowed to come before knowledge and signal politics before competence. The result was that a competent person was moved down because he is a man, white and middle-aged.

I highlighted this example in the chamber, and then I received the answer: "Oh, poor guy." That answer actually says quite a lot, because one does not see the problem with it never being a pity if a white, middle-aged, heterosexual man—because he is exactly that. The answer also says quite a lot about the view of men in certain parties, namely that one cannot even discuss injustice if the wrong person is affected.

Perhaps the most concerning thing is not that discrimination occurs, but that some here in this chamber choose to laugh it away. But when one person is quoted in, it is another person who is quoted out. That is how discrimination works, even if it is called positive.

Of course, parties have the right to design their ballots exactly as they wish, but this mindset permeates the entire society. It is no longer the most suitable person who is rewarded. It is the one who fits best into an intersectional grid. In that pattern or grid, gender plays a very large role.

This mindset does not only permeate politics. It seeps into recruitment across the entire labor market. When one chooses signaling value over competence, the whole society pays the price. The Sweden Democrats believe that an equal society is a society where gender plays no role and where women and men have the same rights, the same opportunities, and the same conditions. But unfortunately, we seem to be quite alone in this.

The majority of the parties in this chamber seem, in practice, to view equality as a pure figure. If at least 40 percent are of the underrepresented gender, it is by definition equal. But a percentage goal inevitably leads to quotas. There is even an exception in the Discrimination Act that makes it permissible to discriminate on the basis of gender if it aims to create a more equal gender distribution.

Madam Speaker! I want to move for approval of reservation 2. In it, it is established that gender should not play any role and that women and men shall have the same rights, opportunities, and conditions regardless of gender. I quote: "Equality is about being free and having the same power to shape society and one's own life, rather than achieving a quantitative balance between the genders." But the majority clearly says no to that – hence the reservation.

This actually makes me truly worried. I will continue to engage in issues of equality, even though I am now sitting in a different committee. I want my daughters and all girls to be able to succeed on their merits and through their commitment and their suitability, not thanks to their gender. They should not get anything for free just because a workplace needs more women, and no man or woman should be denied a service just because he or she happens to belong to one gender or the other.

Madam Speaker! Again: Equality is about conditions, not outcomes. I move again for the approval of reservation 2.

(Applause)

In this speech, Staffan Eklöf and Sara Gille (both SD) concurred.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(Decisions were made under § 13.)

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