Equality and measures against discrimination

Ann-Christine Frohm (SD)

Madam Speaker! We now begin the debate on equality and discrimination in report AU11, and I refer to the Sweden Democrats' special statement. Even though we are a supporting party to the government, we have continued to have our own ideas regarding measures against discrimination during the mandate period, which is the area that I will speak about here today.

In this area, we have, among other things, continued the fight to review the Discrimination Act in order to better capture all forms of discrimination. As the Discrimination Act is designed now, it specifies selected groups, which means that someone who does not fit into those specific groups is not considered to be able to be subjected to discrimination. We believe that is wrong.

Political views, for example, have been left out. As an individual in Sweden, you can be discriminated against for your political affiliation without it falling under the law. You can therefore blame yourself if you belong to the wrong party, and you may be forced to endure mockery and ridicule for it. The same applies to us Swedes. Swedes as a group are not covered by the Discrimination Act. It is not only wrong, but it is completely unacceptable and must, of course, be changed as soon as possible. Instead of specifying groups, we therefore want the wording changed to undue differentiation. In that way, all people are included.

Now, this is a debate, and there are other parties in the chamber that unfortunately are not at all as open-hearted and inclusive as we Sverigedemokrater. The parties that do not consider that even we Swedes should be covered by the Discrimination Act will probably – even in that, there is a debate; we have discussed this before – claim that we Sverigedemokrater want to narrow down and exclude. But that is a lie. We want to include.

Madam Speaker! We want to include those Swedes who have been subjected to hate crimes solely because they are Swedes. Swedish youths have had to endure threats and hate, been assaulted and humiliated. Swedish retirees in elderly care are subjected to the same humiliation, lack of empathy and, in the worst cases, rape. For me, it is extra emotional to speak about them.

I have had children in their teens for a long time, and I have closely followed society's negative development during those years. I have, of course, been a teenager myself, though in the 80s. Back then, we did not need to hear offensive words about our origin in our own school in our own country. We were not exposed to threats that someone would – I do not want to use the word in the rostrum, I consider myself too good for that, but most people still know what I mean when I continue the sentence – "hm" our own mother.

It is a matter of clear threats. We are not worth water, neither as people in general nor as women in particular.

I was educated as a healthcare assistant, and I worked for several years in elderly care. I know how vulnerable an elderly person in need of care is in their own home. To know that it happens today that the elderly lie in their own feces and are subjected to violence and other abusive treatment is so incredibly painful. It is also a great sorrow that educated and skilled care personnel today leave their employment because they cannot tolerate colleagues who do not know the language, lack knowledge of our culture, or lack work ethic and respect for their fellow human beings.

You in the parties that, through a total lack of responsibility and planning, have led us to this total integration failure should look at yourselves in the mirror and reflect on how you could let this happen. At the same time as Swedes are subjected to violations of rarely seen proportions, compensation is paid to individuals who have been deemed to have been subjected to violations because they did not want to shake hands or were not allowed to complain when they performed their work. You jeopardize the security and safety of your own people, while simultaneously defending violations that have not caused any damage whatsoever. It is a betrayal without equal, and it clearly shows that the Discrimination Act does not work.

We Sweden Democrats stand on one side of the halfway line, and we stand up for the Swedes. We will continue to fight so that all Swedes who are subjected to improper differential treatment every day, in our own country, receive justice.

The parties on the other side of the pitch are the same parties whose representatives think that Swedes do not have any culture of their own, that for example, it is silly to celebrate Midsummer. They shout loudly on the barricades about everyone's equal value, but only if you have the right origin and the right opinions. If you are not considered to have that but happen to be born in your own country, you simply have to put up with actually being so hated and humiliated that someone spits on you or urinates on you. It is completely horrible.

Madam Speaker! I am ashamed on behalf of the other parties who cannot stand up for their own people. To all of you who have been, and are being, subjected to Swedish-hostility, I truly want to send my warmest condolences. This autumn is the election. Then it is up to you who can vote which path Sweden shall take. The direction is already laid out.

In this speech, Mats Arkhem (SD) agreed.

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

Sofia Amloh (S)

Madam Speaker! The Tidö parties have governed the country for nearly four years. One parliamentary term has passed, which has primarily benefited only one half of the population, namely the men. Since 2022, the differences between women and men have increased in several ways. Women's ill health has increased more than men's, the gender pay gap has widened, and for female retirees, things have become increasingly tougher economically.

The distribution of parental leave is still unequal, and more single mothers are unable to cover the month's expenses. Bris's latest report warns that the vulnerability in the home stands out. The children describe the consequences of growing up in economic vulnerability and violence in the home. It is clearly evident that the government, with its priorities, has deliberately worsened the most fundamental issues of equality.

Madam Speaker! The job tax credits that have been introduced during the mandate period have cost several billion kronor annually, and they have significantly increased economic inequality. The Tidö parties have pursued a highly deliberate policy aimed at men with higher incomes. The government itself has stated that the job tax credit has the greatest effect at high incomes. This, combined with the fact that men owned 68 percent of households' total stock wealth in 2024, demonstrates a total lack of gender and class perspectives.

Almost three out of four women work in the Swedish welfare system in municipalities and regions. At the same time, the Tidö parties pursue a policy that means every fifth municipality and around half of the regions expect a deficit for 2025. Not to prioritize welfare is a betrayal of all the women who uphold it. We also know that cuts in the common welfare hit women the hardest.

Rich men get more money in their wallets. At the same time, working women are on their knees and forced to work part-time. They wear themselves out and often cannot work a full working life. Thousands and thousands of women are signed off sick for stress-related illnesses, and that figure is increasing. Furthermore, working women are overrepresented among the poor pensioners.

It is a deeply unfair distribution being carried out by this government. While it has become increasingly difficult for families, the government has also chosen to keep family support low. The child allowance has not been increased, and the temporary increase of the housing allowance for single parents with children has been removed. This has occurred at the same time as single mothers have incomes that do not suffice for the most essential needs – according to figures from Försäkringskassan.

Madam Speaker! The gender pay gap in Sweden is persistent and has even increased in recent years, as I mentioned earlier. In other EU countries, the gap is larger than in Sweden, and women's opportunities to participate in the labor market are worse.

The EU's pay transparency directive is an attempt to address this structural disadvantage for women through new legislation. Among other things, the expected pay range shall be disclosed during recruitment to address the problem of men receiving higher starting salaries than women. For the first time in many years, the directive provides the opportunity to take a decisive action against women's lower wages, something that is welcomed by both employers and employees.

The government has, however, succeeded in the feat of presenting a proposal that risked having the opposite effect, i.e., less transparency and a larger pay gap. The criticism was extensive from all sides. The government has now withdrawn the proposal without giving any notification as to when the Riksdag will have a new proposal to take a position on. They have even chosen to send it back to the EU for renegotiations – completely incomprehensible given that it is an impassable path!

This is nothing less than a failure of historical proportions. The directive was to be implemented in Swedish law on June 7 this year. The work to close the wage gap and remove unjustified wage differences could then take the next step, but the government has now chosen to put a spoke in the wheel. It is both astonishing and deeply unfortunate for a pioneering country like Sweden.

Mr. Speaker! As if this were not enough! Sweden has for decades built up extensive women's peace work all over the country that we should be proud of, even though there is much more to be done. But the government began the mandate period by introducing legislation that has had devastating consequences for the country's women's shelters. The calculations show to date that almost 40 women's shelters have been closed. Many of them have been active for 30–40 years. And more will be if the government does not revise its policy as soon as possible.

How far must the dismantling of the work for women's peace go before SD and the government do something? How many more women's shelters need to be closed before action is taken?

We Social Democrats have long been driving the work to strengthen women's self-determination. We do not intend to slow down the pace. Women shall have the same right as men to shape their own lives and make their own decisions. Anything less than full equality we can never accept.

Economic inequality between the genders is fundamentally a question of social economy. We Social Democrats want to strengthen resources for the welfare system and improve working conditions to push back the unworthy sickness absence rates, for a better working environment that one does not get sick from.

We want to remove the unfair earnings deduction. We want to strengthen the finances of vulnerable households and increase the child allowance. We shall fight poverty, not nourish it. Sweden needs a conscious equality policy that prioritizes hard-working women in the welfare sector and drives an economic policy that puts single mothers ahead of the wealthiest men in society.

We need to reduce the economic gap between the poor and the rich, not drive it further. We need to reduce the health gaps so that working women do not pay the highest price with a shortened life expectancy. It is fundamental for us Social Democrats that we cannot leave the other half of the population behind. Equality is not something one chooses or opts out of. It is not a plus menu. Equality is the foundation for the social democratic nation-building and for the welfare state.

Mr. Speaker! This is far more than we can say this government has proven.

It is not only equality that is regressing. People are increasingly discriminated against on the basis of age, gender, ethnicity, religious belief, sexual orientation, gender expression, and disability. Discrimination is increasing and spreading.

Mr. Speaker! Some ask why it is so important that people should not be discriminated against. Well, it is of course because no one should be subjected to the human suffering that it entails. But it is also important that we in democracies cannot tolerate that people are discriminated against. Regardless of who one is or who one wants to be, one should not have to pay a price that means that one cannot participate in society like everyone else, that one is oppressed and that one's civil and political rights are limited.

We all need to stand up for this and actively work so that people are not subjected to discrimination. Unfortunately, the strength is lacking. Many fall silent while the hatred and the threats are given oxygen. It is worrying for Swedish democracy. The ambitions are far too low, and the conservative government shall be held accountable for this.

Mr. Speaker! I stand behind all our reservations, but for the sake of time, I move for approval of only reservation number 3.

(Applause)

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

Merit Frost Lindberg (M)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Member, for the speech! I note that we are in many ways in agreement on the objective, namely that we are to have an equal Sweden. On the other hand, there are great differences when it comes to how we want to achieve that goal.

But while we talk about wage differences and equality, there are also forces in our country that work diligently to create a completely different society in Sweden and pull us back closer to 100 years in time. We have seen far too many examples of associations and organizations that have a female-hostile and discriminatory Islamist agenda being able to spread in Sweden and even receive public grants.

This is a major problem, which has also been highlighted as a security problem from Säpos side. The government has acted forcefully against this so that public funds cannot go to these actors, who will completely change the worldview if we talk about equality in Sweden. We have strengthened the democratic conditions for grants. The support to religious communities has been reviewed etcetera.

The Social Democrats, on the other hand, have received strong criticism for both links to and cooperation with organizations such as these. They also voted no to an external audit of the student unions when the Moderates presented a proposal for it.

I wonder, then: How can the Social Democrats claim that they stand up for equality when they in practice accept and, in some cases, even finance activities that lack respect for women's fundamental freedoms and rights?

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

Sofia Amloh (S)

Mr. Speaker! We have never said that we think it is right to finance activities that pose a risk to national security and contribute to pushing back women's civil and political rights. I want to be very clear about that, member. There is no support for those types of activities.

But that this government has chosen to slaughter many parts of the work of the study associations and the folk high schools affects people's opportunities enormously. It affects their opportunities for education and studies. Many times, it is women's opportunities for a first, second, or third chance that are affected. That is what this government has contributed with.

That we then need to make these types of tightenings and review regulations so that grants do not go there, we fully support. This is done in every municipality, by culture and leisure committees and so on.

This government has for nearly four years actively ensured that equality has regressed on many levels, as I have just described in my speech. The member may be welcome to answer more – either now or in their later speech. I believe that many would like to hear it.

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

Merit Frost Lindberg (M)

Mr. Speaker! Reality unfortunately shows something else. In the city of Stockholm alone, the red-green government chose to continue supporting the student union Ibn Rushd, despite there being known deficiencies linked to democratic conditions and that connections to Islamist networks could also be shown.

This was something that continued despite the Moderaterna pushing and pushing. The Socialdemokraterna wanted to continue with this grant until the Folkbildningsrådet finally withdrew the state grants. Reluctantly, when it was no longer possible to defend it, one agreed to stop it.

As I noted, there has also been a vote in the Riksdag to refuse to allow an external review of the student unions, when the Moderaterna proposed it.

Furthermore, I note that the Social Democrats cooperate with the Left Party, a left-wing party that has its roots in communism. There are examples among the Social Democrats of representatives who have unsuitable connections, not only in Stockholm. We have also seen it in Gothenburg and in the youth organizations. But it also exists among the partner, the Left Party. There are even Members of Parliament who have antisemitic connections and who issue statements.

I wonder how the Social Democrats can maintain their credibility in the fight against antisemitism when the Social Democrats cooperate with a party where representatives are repeatedly criticized for antisemitic expressions and where tax money has even gone to projects linked to organizations that have themselves stated that they have participated in terrorist attacks.

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

Sofia Amloh (S)

Mr. Speaker! I actually do not quite know what the member is doing here in the speaker's chair – criticizing us for all sorts of things; it is raining down right now.

The member should perhaps back down. I have not raised it myself. But, Mr. Speaker, when the member raises how it looks in one's government options, I would like to recommend that the member read the Sweden Democrats' white paper and look at the Sweden Democrats' history. I would like to recommend that the member read their principle program and ask the colleagues what they stand for, especially when it comes to equality and when it comes to democratic rights and human civil and political rights.

If that government option is not suitable, one should perhaps not criticize us so harshly in this area. I think one should focus the energy on looking at one's own government basis in the first instance when choosing to engage in this debate.

The member raised many issues. When it comes to the city of Stockholm and examples of what is happening there, I think the member is welcome to go back to their own municipal council and take the debate there.

In the work of forming and educating and ensuring that more people become democrats, we also need to move people who are not as democratic to a more democratic place – with that type of knowledge and values. The Government or the Moderaterna actually have no proposal of their own on how to do this, but they say no and leave it behind. I think it is sad that it has not progressed.

(Applause)

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

Merit Frost Lindberg (M)

Mr. Speaker! I would like to vote in favor of the committee's proposal.

Sweden is today one of the world's most equal countries. It is no coincidence but the result of decades of reform work and the expansion of the welfare state. It has made it possible and profitable for women to enter the workforce. But above all, we have generations of strong and brave women to thank for this – women who have led the way and fought for suffrage, education, work, and economic independence. Those women did not only fundamentally change our societies, our living conditions, but also our norms and values.

It was a very long time ago that we were content with being housewives and dependent on men – with limited freedom. We women know that we are worth more. We can do better. We demand our rights, and that is good. It is exactly as it should be. We must never, ever back down. Equality must continue to develop and improve for all women in our country. Therefore, the government continues to implement concrete reforms:

The number of double days in the parental leave has been increased; and they can be transferred to relatives. Historical investments are being made in maternity care and women's health. The pension system is being reviewed from an equality perspective. For women born abroad, the government has presented an increased establishment allowance and an individualized child allowance to increase incentives for work.

Not least, the government is implementing a benefit reform with activity requirements. Those who do not work shall not remain within the four walls of the home but shall learn Swedish, receive education, and in various ways receive support in making themselves more employable. It is a crucial equality reform, not least for foreign-born women.

I honestly believe that the Members of Parliament sitting here now, regardless of party, actually want an equal Sweden. I believe that we want to work towards the same goal. The dividing line is about how we want to achieve it. The Moderate-led government has a strong confidence in women's abilities and supports equality through jobs. We lower taxes so that one can live on one's salary, while the Social Democrats and the opposition believe that women fare best through benefits.

But how much the thought of chaining women to benefit dependency tickles in my body – it really does – there is nothing that scares me more. At the same time as we continue to refine regarding parental leave and pay gaps and argue about whether jobs and lower taxes or benefits are the right way forward, there are forces in our country that seem to act in a completely different direction. It is a direction towards a society where women are expected to subordinate themselves to men, where the right to be who one is and love whom one wants does not exist, and where the individual's freedom is completely sidelined for the group and oppression.

Thousands of young people in Sweden live under honor oppression. And we see that negative attitudes among young people towards hbtqi-persons have increased sharply – from 3 percent in 2013 to a full 15 percent in 2026. Note that it is not an increase among young people overall! This is an attitude that exists primarily among young boys – boys in environments where religion and conservative norms govern everyday life.

The government has, since taking office, acted forcefully against honor-based oppression. A new seventh gender equality sub-goal has been introduced. An action plan is being developed, and a number of legislative tightenings have been implemented.

But legislation is not enough. The work against honor culture requires an unwavering compass. Every time we make a decision, we must ask ourselves: Will this decision strengthen the individual's freedom, or does it risk reinforcing control and lack of freedom?

This line must permeate the entire society. It applies to schools, municipalities, authorities, and all instances that daily encounter our citizens, children, and young people.

In Stockholm, we have seen how the red-green majority has opened up for solutions that go in a completely opposite direction. When separate swimming times for men and women are introduced, the policy in practice serves the interests of the honor culture. Problematic situations are also created in preschool and school, for example when staff, according to parents' instructions, force the veil back on the little girl when she has taken it off in order to be able to play. In that case, the representatives of society in practice become carriers of the oppression that the child should be protected from.

We have also seen far too many examples of instances such as social services and courts, which are supposed to protect those at risk of honor-based violence, having diminished the danger and oppression, which has caused the victims much suffering and sometimes even cost them their lives. And when important decisions in the right direction were made, such as when the Gender Equality Authority changed its policy to not use images where minors wear a veil in order to avoid contributing to the normalization of or promoting situations where girls are discriminated against or oppressed, we saw in the media that this was questioned by some employees.

I must unfortunately conclude that the work against honor culture is still hindered by a cultural-relativistic view where the seriousness is toned down or explained away, and consideration for explanatory models weighs more heavily than the protection of the individual human being's freedom. The core of the problem with the cultural-relativistic perspective is precisely that it does not lead to tolerance but on the contrary: It leads to the society beginning to compromise on its most fundamental values.

(Applause)

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

Sofia Amloh (S)

Mr. Speaker! The historical struggle for historically important reforms has many times been fought by social democratically led governments. It is nothing that the bourgeois Moderate Party has historically been prominent in; frankly, the actions have well several times been in the opposite direction. Then one can come quite far afterwards and boast about the positive effects of the major equality reforms that have been made in Sweden and express oneself regarding Swedish values that we should rave about.

I completely agree – absolutely.

We have now had four years with this government. One of the fundamental building blocks for equality to move forward is economic equality. Since 2022, however, the difference between women and men has increased in many ways. Women's ill health has increased more than men's. That is a fact. That is the reality. Furthermore, the gender pay gap has increased since 2022. That is also a fact. The uptake of parental leave is still unequal.

I want to ask the member why you chose to introduce several job tax credits that have cost taxpayers tens of billions of kronor annually and which have increased economic inequality.

The number of sick leaves within the welfare sector has increased drastically, according to Försäkringskassan. Why have you cut in the welfare sector, where the majority of women work?

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

Merit Frost Lindberg (M)

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

I still want to assert that the government has achieved quite a lot, not least when it concerns those affected by honor violence, this in contrast to the opposition which for a long time even denied that the violence existed.

If we are to talk about the economic policy, it has been an immensely important prioritization. We took over an inflation of up to 10 percent, high unemployment and so on. It was a pure state of crisis when the government took office, but we have managed to turn this around despite all the challenges with war, trade tariffs and other things that the government has had to handle besides what we inherited.

Economic equality is an absolute priority. We have not only changed regarding the double days but have also looked at division processes. We have also assigned tasks to Tillväxtverket, because part of the inequality concerns female entrepreneurship and ownership. Several tasks are currently underway there to be able to support this better. We have also worked with a focus on financing and capital and also cooperation in order to be able to support women in that. As I mentioned, we are also reviewing the pension system from an equality perspective, and there are also several other tasks.

When it comes to the job tax credit, I want to inform the members that it will largely benefit women with low incomes, in contrast to the Social Democrats' proposal to increase the child allowance, something that would to the same extent go to those who earn the best. It is not a particularly smart distribution policy way to reach precisely those who have it the toughest. The tax cuts, on the other hand, have benefited ordinary families with children and also single parents to a greater extent than the very richest.

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

Sofia Amloh (S)

Mr. Speaker! I note that several of the things that have been said by the member are directly hypocritical. To hide behind the claim that moderate economic policy would benefit the most economically vulnerable in society is hypocritical.

It is the wealthiest in society who have benefited from job tax credit after job tax credit, where 10, 20, 30, 40, 50 billion of the taxpayers' money has gone into their pockets. Then one stands here in the speaker's chair, Mr. Speaker, and claims that this benefits equality. It is directly incorrect.

(Applause)

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

Merit Frost Lindberg (M)

Mr. Speaker! The member may perhaps need some instruction in economics.

Yes, the job tax credit has actually benefited low-income earners and women. That is what I want to point out. In addition, the government has taken a long series of measures specifically to benefit women. For my part, it is precisely the economic policy that is the only way that will be able to provide the basis for the welfare that the member spoke about in their previous post.

The reason why I myself am moderate is that I know that the economic policy that we pursue is the only way to create economic growth. We need companies, and we need people who work. That is how we get in taxes to support people who need more support or who cannot work. That is how we get tax revenue for schools and healthcare. The economic policy that we pursue is the foundation for the welfare state.

The Social Democrats see benefits to women as the only way to equality, while we Moderates believe it is about jobs and independence. If we lower the tax so that one can live on their salary, no benefits are needed. It is a more dignified path to equality than the one that the Social Democrats and the opposition envision.

Once again: the job tax credit has been part of strengthening both single-person households and, not least, families with children, who today have over 5,000 kronor more in their pockets in total than when we took office. This we have achieved despite that we have fought inflation and despite that we have had war and trade barriers to overcome – in addition, as said, the large deficit with unemployment and inflation that we had to take over from the Social Democrats when we took office.

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 am going to ask a question of a different character, but I first want to establish that economic equality is crucial for women to be able to live a free life. We know that, and we all agree on it. It applies to all women; it applies to unemployed women, single women and women in their careers, and it also applies to crime victims. After crime victims have been subjected to [crime], they should be able to come back and receive a dignified life.

That is why I think it is very strange that the government taxes crime victims, as in the case in Västernorrland where a woman who was subjected to prostitution actually has to pay tax on the money she received from sex buyers. Or, received and received – it is not she who has disposed of the money, as it has turned out, but it is her husband who has forced her to sell sex.

What does that debate have to do with this? Well, equality is a thematic issue. It concerns all policy areas. And even though we who are here do not sit in the Committee on Taxation, where this issue is also debated, I assume that issues are decided in groups even within the majority of the government support, where opinions are clashed and contested.

I do not know if the question was mentioned then, but it should have been mentioned when we here in the chamber a while ago debated the Swedish National Audit Office's report on economic violence. It is a case where the state contributes to structural economic violence, and that is the case here. I am therefore wondering if the member can answer the question of why it is like this, or rather what the government intends to do to stop the state from taxing prostitution – that is, taxing crime victims.

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

Merit Frost Lindberg (M)

Mr. Speaker! I thank the member for the question. I share the view that this is a relevant issue, and I myself am very deeply affected by the thought that tax is being levied on prostitutes. I cannot imagine that it is intended to be so.

This is not a new issue. It is not that the current government has changed the tax legislation; this tax legislation looked the way it does also during the previous government's time and even before that. What has happened instead is that the Swedish Tax Agency has suddenly demanded tax from a prostitute. It is very unfortunate and something that I believe none of us want to happen.

This is an issue that has been looked at, and it is complicated to change in the penal code without simultaneously opening loopholes for criminals to be able to launder money. I do, however, completely share the view that this is distasteful and that the idea behind the tax system is absolutely not that it should work in this way. For me personally, it creates many different question marks regarding priorities, not least at Skatteverket.

This is a question that I myself have not released. I have no answer today as to exactly how this can be rectified, but I would like to have the opportunity to return to the question.

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

Helena Vilhelmsson (C)

Mr. Speaker! I say this to more than just Member Frost Lindberg: I hope that in the debate ahead we can avoid that form of whataboutism that almost emerged here – "but what about everyone else, then"?

Yes, it is such that this system has existed for a long time. The first time this was debated in the chamber was certainly 15–20 years ago. Even then it was established that no taxation shall occur if it concerns a crime victim. After that, it has been quite quiet regarding this, until a few years ago when the police conducted an investigation at a woman's home and found cash, which came to the Swedish Tax Agency's knowledge.

So, there is no clear strategy when the Swedish Tax Agency stumbles over such examples, and that is what I have raised with the government time and again. I have done it to the current government, because it is for some reason during this parliamentary term that this situation has arisen at the Swedish Tax Agency. It is the government that must do something about this, because the Swedish Tax Agency says they want a mandate. They want an investigation into this, and they want to do something about it. But honestly, the Finance Minister says no, and why is a bit difficult to understand.

The Chairman mentioned again that this has been looked into. Well, a round-table discussion has been held with relevant authorities and organizations, and the absolutely decisive conclusion from that discussion was that this should not occur and that Skatteverket should be able to make an exception from the legislation. But despite that, the message from the Ministry of Finance following that meeting is: No, because it can pose a risk.

It is as if there was not already a risk here. In the case in Västernorrland, it was a former Hells Angels member who is already involved in crime who exploited the woman, so what does the risk consist of? I do not understand that. I therefore ask the question again: What, specifically, can the member do to eliminate this problem?

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

Merit Frost Lindberg (M)

Mr. Speaker! I am not arguing against the member in this at all, I want to say. I can only answer quite briefly that I personally have not let the issue drop. My view is also not that the government has let the issue drop. We will certainly have to return to it.

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

Maj Karlsson (V)

Mr. Speaker! I want to begin this debate with a situational overview.

Women in Sweden still work for free during the last hour of the workday. We have lower wages, higher sickness absence, and take a greater responsibility for parental leave. We work part-time more often and bear a heavier responsibility for the care of relatives, which ultimately leads to lower pensions.

The most dangerous place for many women is their own home, and men in our vicinity can be our greatest threat – all this simply because we are women.

The wage and income gaps between women and men have stopped decreasing, and the distribution of unpaid domestic and care work is regressing. During 2024, men's uptake of both vab and parental leave decreased.

Cohabiting women with children have the highest absence from the labor market. Women's self-reported health is worse than men's, and the differences are increasing. Women's sickness benefit figures are almost twice as high as men's.

Prostitution and human trafficking are increasing. Every year, around 75,000 women are subjected to violence by men in Sweden. On average, 15–20 women are killed per year by a man they have or have had a relationship with. That is approximately one woman every three weeks. Up to 40,000 assault crimes against women are reported every year, as well as around 9,000 rapes against women and girls. This means that more than one rape is reported every hour, around the clock, all year round.

Still, the statistics only show a part of the reality. They say nothing about how women are emotionally affected when the welfare state is dismantled. They say nothing about the conditions in the workplaces or in schools. They cannot describe the collective insecurity in the public space. They do not provide a picture of the stories of all the untold life destinies that exist behind every figure.

Mr. Speaker! Before this government took office, it was said that it would take over 100 years to reach true equality, but that we were still on our way. With the development we see now, girls born today risk instead of that, from the very beginning, receiving a ticket to a life as second-class citizens. We are heading in the wrong direction.

This is structural discrimination of women and girls. There is no doubt that equality is one of our time's most important political issues, but nevertheless, it is going in the wrong direction on a structural level.

In a time when the political debate is largely shaped by powerful men, it is difficult to take up space. When the world is burning and hatred is growing, it is not easy to raise one's voice. It is, however, necessary, and it is high time now. These are injustices that we must not accept. These are injustices that we in Vänsterpartiet want to get rid of.

There are several fundamental areas when it comes to women's equality: children and family, work, power, and economy. The single most important factor for increased equality is who takes responsibility for the children. Here lies the foundation for the differences we see. The one who takes the greatest responsibility for home and children is hit hardest economically. The one who is hit economically gets less power, less influence, and ultimately less freedom. Therefore, the responsibility must be shared equally.

Today, women are working themselves sick. It is a political betrayal of great proportions. We cannot continue to watch as women literally break down because they bear the responsibility for unpaid work while politics cuts back where the work is actually paid. Therefore, welfare must be prioritized.

All women shall have the right to full-time work for real. A right on paper is not enough. Working hours must function in people's everyday lives, and therefore a six-hour workday is one of the most important reforms to implement.

Economic policy must stop being based on men's needs. Women must no longer accept that our tax resources benefit men to a greater extent. Tax reliefs may sound good until one sees who actually benefits and who is affected. When resources are shifted from the common to the private, women are hit hardest. It is women-dominated professions that are forced to take a backseat. It is healthcare and caregiving that are eroded. The vicious circle is reinforced: increased workload at work, increased responsibility at home, and more caregiving responsibility. In the end, we stand there, exhausted and insecure. Tax reliefs for men become equality traps for women.

We can never accept anything less than women's right to a free life. Violence against women, in all its forms, is one of our most important security issues. It must be prioritized – within the justice system, among the authorities, in legislation, and in the political debate.

A society where women are forced to flee within their own country and where protection then fails is a society in crisis. Therefore, it is absolutely urgent that the activities of the voluntary child and women's helplines are secured.

Mr. Speaker! I dream of a campaign that is about equal conditions for women. Half of Sweden's population is subjected to structural discrimination. It permeates the entire society and costs women freedom, participation, and in the worst cases, even their lives. Changing this must stand at the top of the political agenda.

In a time of anxiety and fear, when democracy and security are challenged, a clear starting point is needed – a vision based on everyone's freedom and equal rights. That is exactly what equality is about. Increased equality does not mean a win for some at the expense of others, as injustice does today, but a win for everyone.

We will present which reservations we highlight in the next speech.

(Applause)

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

Camilla Rinaldo Miller (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I would like to begin by expressing my support for the Committee on Employment's proposal in report AU11, which we are debating today.

The report deals with central issues regarding equality and the work against discrimination. These are issues that ultimately concern how we view people and what kind of society we want to build. The committee proposes that the Riksdag stand behind the direction that the government has established. I do as well.

For us Christian Democrats, politics takes its starting point in a clear set of values. In our principle program, it is expressed in this way: Human dignity is based on being human – not on actions, abilities, or characteristics.

This is not just a formulation but also a compass for political decisions. It means that every human being has an inviolable value, regardless of background, life situation, or position in society.

Mr. Speaker! We have heard the description of the word equality many times, but it bears repeating: Equality means that women and men have the same rights, obligations, and opportunities in all areas of life, including power, education, economy, and health.

It is also in this light that we shall see the work against discrimination and for equality. It is not solely about regulatory frameworks but also about ensuring that every human being is treated with respect and is given real opportunities to shape their own life.

A few weeks ago, I rushed through Centralen to catch a train. Of all the encounters, there was one that stayed in my memory. I met a man with a bag in his hand that said "homeless" on it. I managed to think that I didn't have time to stop and didn't have any cash to share. Our eyes met, but we passed each other quite quickly. When we had passed each other, the man turned around and said out loud: Thanks for the smile!

The small act cost me nothing more than a friendly reception, but perhaps it made that man's day a little brighter.

In politics, we must of course meet people with respect but also show confidence that they themselves can be involved in influencing their lives. We shall create the conditions for a more equal society where everyone has a place.

At the same time, we argue that the policy must be both responsible and anchored in reality. The government's work has a clear focus on strengthening the paths to self-sufficiency. The reform of Arbetsförmedlingen aims for more efficient matching, so that more people can enter employment and become a part of the community.

Mr. Speaker! This concerns, not least, equality. The Government has continued the work against men's violence against women and strengthened the conditions for women's economic independence through a clear focus on work and self-sufficiency. The work against men's violence against women and the efforts for women's economic independence are not symbolic politics but measures that make a real difference in people's lives.

Particularly important is also the work to strengthen the establishment of foreign-born women in the labor market. Language and work are crucial for increased freedom and independence. This is important from many different perspectives. It is important because these women are a resource and an asset for the labor market in Sweden that we need to become much better at utilizing. It is also important because work is not just a matter of economics but also concerns dignity, participation, and community. No one should be discriminated against because of their background, but everyone should be given the same opportunities.

Mr. Speaker! Christian Democratic policy emphasizes the importance of communities. The family, civil society, and small contexts are crucial for people's security and development. The state has a responsibility, but it can never and should not replace these communities. The Christian Democrats have always worked for and will always work for a family policy that makes it easier to get the everyday puzzle to fit together. The state shall support families, not rule them.

The work that the government has begun and continues to develop is positive for increased equality and reduced discrimination. Therefore, I move, as I have said, for approval of the committee's proposal for a decision.

(Applause)

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

Sofia Amloh (S)

Mr. Speaker! In his speech, the member speaks about creating conditions for people to become free, make their own decisions, and own their lives in all their parts. Here we completely agree, but I nevertheless have quite a few questions for the member. In almost all areas when it comes to equality, Sweden is actually moving backwards.

Women working in the welfare sector have high sickness absence rates, and the group of working women is the only group in society where life expectancy is decreasing. Otherwise, the Swedish population is getting older. Furthermore, the gender pay gap, which had previously remained stagnant, has been increasing since 2022.

After many years of negotiations in the EU, the government had the opportunity to secure a directive that creates the conditions to reduce the wage gap between men and women in the labor market in Europe, but also in Sweden. But the government failed completely. There is no proposal for implementation by June 7; we do not even know if anything will come at all and what it will contain if it does.

This was supposed to be a starting point and a new step in the work to reduce the wage gap and unjustified wage differences. But the government has completely capitulated. Why?

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

Camilla Rinaldo Miller (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Member Amloh for the question. I appreciate receiving it, as it gives me the opportunity to clarify why one chooses not to implement the pay transparency directive according to the proposal that was first submitted. It has to do with the fact that several countries in the EU are stopping the implementation and stating that this is not possible to carry out.

I also have the opportunity to ask the member in what way an introduction of the pay transparency directive would result in more equal pay compared to the pay mapping we already do in Sweden.

I also want to ask which countries in the EU have a similar wage mapping as we have in Sweden.

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

Sofia Amloh (S)

Mr. Speaker! There were more questions than answers.

Sweden has come very far in many areas, especially when it comes to equality. We have worked for many years to produce salary mapping and how these should be carried out. This is, for example, done successfully between the parties. But this is not complete, because we still have unjustified pay differences. The starting salaries for men and women differ.

Both employers and employees have stated that the directive would provide a boost to reduce the wage gap. It is now increasing from having previously stood still. Now it is going in the wrong direction. The directive could create an opportunity in Sweden and Europe, and among others, Finland has wanted to approach the directive in a different way.

These are curtains, because these are countries that have negotiated the directive together to implement it in the EU. But now they are muddying it and saying that it is not possible to implement and want to back out to something that they themselves say is not possible to renegotiate.

The investigation has been out for consultation, and there are good approaches and good proposals to implement in Swedish legislation. Why did the government choose not to do this?

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

Camilla Rinaldo Miller (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I received no clear answer as to which countries are implementing this. Finland was mentioned, but I received no answer from the Member as to whether they have introduced the pay transparency directive or will do so. It will result in that no one will implement it.

For once, Sweden can perhaps let some other countries implement the EU directive first. Let Italy, Spain, and Greece start, and then we do the same as them so that, for once, we do not over-implement but land in a more reasonable implementation.

Sweden has a well-functioning pay mapping, which no other countries in the EU have in the same way, neither as extensive nor as transparent as the Swedish pay mapping is. For me, it is both completely unreasonable and naive to believe that the introduction of the pay transparency directive will automatically result in equal pay. The Swedish pay mapping has, however, taken us many steps in that direction.

So that those listening to the debate do not become completely misled, I shall read an excerpt from the committee report: "The committee wishes to initially emphasize the pleasing fact that Sweden continues to place itself highly in international equality measurements, including in the European Institute for Gender Equality's index for 2025 where Sweden once again takes first place." When listening to the debate, one might get the impression that Sweden is lagging behind and is doing poorly when it comes to equality work. But it is the opposite. We are at the forefront, and we shall continue to be.

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 intend to ask the same question to Member Rinaldo Miller as I did to Member M. It may seem repetitive for those listening, but this situation is so unreasonable in its character. Everyone who so far has said no to any form of change and improvement of the situation must answer the question of why one chooses to tax crime victims.

KD is perhaps a pleasing exception, for in a debate article some time ago it was said that one is open to a legislative change. I assume it is for the same reasons as I mentioned, namely that this is completely unreasonable. But despite that, KD voted no in the Committee on Taxation when the opposition, on the initiative of the Center Party, wanted to submit a committee initiative to change this. It was both disappointing and strange, and the member is welcome to explain why.

The thing is that now exactly what we warned about and described in the committee initiative that KD voted no to has just happened: A crime-affected woman has been forced to pay tax.

How does this help the crime victims to seek help and contribute to convicting those who are actually criminals, and how will the members work to change the situation?

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

Camilla Rinaldo Miller (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Member Vilhelmsson for an important question, and just as I said in my speech about what equality means, it bears repeating.

The member is correct about what the Christian Democrats have opened up for. It is unreasonable for a crime victim to end up in this situation, and therefore we want this to be looked at and something to be done about it. Merit, the member from the Moderaterna, answered the question very well, and like her, I will not let this issue drop but will follow it closely and monitor it. But I will not stand here today and promise that I or any other member of the Riksdag for the government parties can get the government to change its mind. But we can continue to work for it, because a crime victim should receive support, not be subjected to the situation they find themselves in, just as in the case the member raises.

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

Helena Vilhelmsson (C)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Member, for the answer! It was an expected answer. I understand it, but then I would like to take the opportunity to provide some facts about what is happening now.

Today in the Committee on Taxation, I requested that we summon the Minister for Finance to the committee to answer questions. As I said, it is a completely different situation now, because exactly what we warned about has now happened. Therefore, the Minister for Finance needs to answer why the government chooses to tax crime victims and why the entire government base, so far, obviously chooses to support this.

Regarding what has happened, one can gladly go in and read the answer to a written question that I submitted last week. Despite the fact that one of the government parties is now opening up to changing the situation, the Ministry of Finance, the Moderaterna, or whoever it is that is the bottleneck is still acting. The answer is: No, we do not intend to do anything about this because the negative consequences are so great.

It is a completely incomprehensible answer. This is what the Minister for Finance is to answer in the Committee on Taxation, and perhaps eventually in the Chamber, depending on what the answer becomes.

I understand, of course, that one cannot give any promises or guarantees here, but I had hoped for more dedicated answers that one actually will not give up until it changes, because it is so unreasonable and not in line with how both justice policy and tax policy have been conducted for decades until now.

But I hear what the parties in the government basis are saying. I say that we will have to return to the issue.

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

Camilla Rinaldo Miller (KD)

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

I hope that we can collectively land on something sensible regarding this. As said, I will not and shall not stand here and promise anything, but I can still, just as the Moderate member said, myself work so that one really looks at the unreasonable in this and sees and weighs the pros and cons of changing what currently applies.

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

Helena Vilhelmsson (C)

Mr. Speaker, members and listeners! Today we are debating the Committee on Employment's report on equality and measures against discrimination, with an emphasis on economic equality. We will actually discuss violence against women, prostitution, human trafficking, and honor-related violence and oppression once again, in June.

My speech will deal a bit more with economic equality, which is a core issue in politics. It should be for everyone. It is a core issue in the Center Party's liberal and feminist ideology – the belief in every person's right and ability to shape their own future, free from the structures and norms that limit and naturally free from oppression and discrimination.

Like many others have expressed here, I am also a bit concerned about a government that largely seems to view gender equality work more as an administrative exercise than as an active work of change. Time and again, motions are rejected, ours and others', with reference to ongoing work. I don't quite think that holds up, given that development is standing still or even moving backwards, which it actually is. We are experiencing a backlash against gender equality both internationally and in Sweden. That means, per se, that the ongoing work is not sufficient.

Mr. Speaker! Let us begin with the section on gender equality integration. The Government and its coalition partners argue that the processes currently in place are sufficient. Reference is made to policy documents and that the responsibility lies with each minister. It is well-intentioned, but how is it followed up?

The fact is that this government has weakened the governance of gender equality integration. For a long sequence of years, every agency had a mandate in the regulatory letters to implement and report on its work with gender equality integration. But what does this government do? Well, they remove those provisions and refer to a government decision that is supposed to apply to everything and everyone. And presto, they have removed a number of possible opportunities to evaluate, follow up and improve, something that the Gender Equality Authority itself has also said is unfortunate.

When I have asked questions here in the chamber to the Minister for Equality with several others, I have received the answer that that work was not needed because one is nevertheless in continuous discussion with heads of authorities. Would the government say the same thing if one removed writings about, for example, combating the criminal gangs, that the ministers can indeed talk to the authorities about it every day? I do not believe so.

No, it is about priorities, which becomes extra clear when one reads the government's response in the report. In the reference to the government decision that I just referred to, which is supposed to apply to everything and everyone, it states: "The decision further specifies that the work with gender equality integration shall, to the greatest extent possible, be integrated into ordinary preparatory processes." Nonsense! It should be included in all work.

Here, one can gladly read the conclusions in the report from Sveriges Kvinnoorganisationer on equality in investigations etc. from the government, which show that the equality glasses are missing, not least when it comes to writing investigation directives etc. It is actually quite stinging criticism from SKO when it concerns the impact of fiscal and monetary policy on equality.

In our motion, we specifically proposed that the Gender Equality Authority should be given a mandate to review the effects of integration measures from a gender equality perspective. Why then? Well, because we know that there is a large employment gap between foreign-born women and men. It is an integration problem, but it is also, to the highest degree, a gender equality problem. To then reject a concrete proposal to gain more knowledge and be able to design accurate measures is unfortunate. Here, the government can once again seek knowledge from, for example, the report by Sveriges Kvinnoorganisationer, Genom nålsögat – Vägar framåt för utrikes födda kvinnors arbetsmarknadsetablering.

Then it should be said that I think it is very good that the government has taken some of the measures mentioned here when it comes to the establishment program, for example. They are very good measures, but many more were needed.

Mr. Speaker! This leads me to the second part of the report that I intended to bring up: economic equality. Women and men shall have the same opportunities and conditions regarding paid work that provides economic independence for life. That is the goal. But what does it look like in reality today?

As we have heard, the statistics are bleak. The wage gaps between women and men have stopped decreasing. Women more often work part-time, have more insecure employment, and take a greater responsibility for unpaid home and care work. We know that this leads to lower lifetime earnings and lower pensions. Furthermore, women own and run companies to a significantly lesser extent than men. What a lack of resources!

Centerpartiet argues that we must address the actual wage gap. We have demanded measures to break the part-time norm, strengthen women's entrepreneurship, and ensure a more equal distribution of public venture capital. For us, it is about tearing down the barriers that limit self-determination and about making visible the structures that value women-dominated professions much lower.

The government's answer is: ongoing work. One refers to Medlingsinstitutet's reports, which are actually very good, but one does not really speak about what has been done or intends to be done with the reports and the conclusions. One refers to the labor market parties. Yes, it is clear that the parties have responsibility for wage setting – absolutely – but I do not think one should be too laid-back as the responsible government in that work. We must develop norms, rules, and practices, especially now when the pay transparency directive is delayed and one actually does not, in my opinion, use Medlingsinstitutet's results.

Finally: A woman who is financially dependent on her partner has more difficulty leaving a destructive relationship. Equal economy is therefore also a part of the work to prevent violence.

That is why I want to once again bring up the very remarkable case in Västernorrland. Economic independence is, not least, important for crime victims and their opportunities to return to everyday life. Therefore, it is so strange that the state, via the tax authority, severely impairs that opportunity for the victimized woman in Västernorrland. The state is thus collecting tax on money that a woman in prostitution received from sex buyers. Or received and received – she has probably not seen a penny of this money, because her husband has functioned as a pimping agency. The woman has been forced to sell sex for several years, and her husband has taken the money. How much more of a crime victim can one become than that?

I would so much like to have an answer as to why the government is okay with taxing crime victims – for she is one, even if the man is not convicted yet. The charges are as close to human trafficking as one can get. When there are clear crime victims and money appears in an investigation, the police should actually take care of them. They should go to crime victim compensation. It has been a practice within the Swedish justice system for decades. The money should not go to the tax agency to subsequently go to your and my welfare.

That the authority seems to have backed itself into a corner and time and again expresses that the government needs to investigate the issue has so far not led to any action from the government, so my question remains: Why does the government want to tax crime victims?

This is nothing other than structural discrimination, where the state precisely undermines the possibility of a life of independence. Therefore, it is important with gender equality integration in our agencies, with annual follow-up. Then one might have arrived at a different way to address this, for example that the Tax Agency is secure in exempting crime victims from taxation. Not even that is done today without asking the government for guidance, which one has not received until now.

I stand behind all our reservations but move for the approval of reservation 2.

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!

I was actually a bit surprised by what the member said about the government focusing on administrative work instead of on action. I thought exactly the same thing when I read the motion from Centerpartiet about analyzing the effects of integration efforts from a gender equality perspective.

I think it is completely obvious that we have problems with both equality and integration and that they are closely linked to each other. The unemployment for foreign-born women is three times higher than for domestic-born, and they are the furthest away from the labor market. We agree on that, but I do not think the government focuses on administration and nor should it do so more. We already have analyses and facts; it is action that is what is important.

I think there are reasons for some self-reflection within the Center Party here. Now that we are working very hard to support specifically those women born abroad, this government has focused on both creating incentives and setting requirements for work. In that regard, the Center Party has fought against both stricter language requirements linked to benefits and setting requirements in other ways.

But we have also continued to work with support. I want to remind that the Center Party was the driving party in dismantling just those parts of the Arbetsförmedlingen that these groups need so much, namely accessibility, support, and local presence. This government is now trying to rebuild that in order to be able to combine incentives with support for foreign-born women to improve both integration and equality.

How does the member view this? Is this not precisely action? Is this not the way forward instead of even more analysis?

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

Helena Vilhelmsson (C)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, member, for the question! It is always good to receive questions that one can clarify a bit more.

Yes, that analyzing was perhaps a funny phrasing. But the fact remains. Now these measures have just begun. We will hopefully see results, among other things from what I raised that the member also has spoken about. But we believe that much more is needed.

I mentioned the report from Sveriges Kvinnoorganisationer, which we both participated in listening to. I think there are plenty of good things to take from it.

Quotas are usually a forbidden word to put in one's mouth. But I can think that one can quota other things than the parental leave. One might also be able to quota the labor market measures and ensure that they go as much to women as to men. It is one of the areas where it fails miserably and has done so for a long time, as investigations far back in time have pointed out – the Commission for lifelong equal incomes, for example. We do not have a method in Sweden to guarantee that the support that public authorities provide benefits women and men in the same way. It fails endlessly, and that needs to be pointed out.

Otherwise, I did not quite recognize myself in the member's descriptions – that we were against support for improved language initiatives and such things.

When it comes to Arbetsförmedlingen, we were indeed largely in agreement that a reform needed to take place because Arbetsförmedlingen did most things except for just mediating work. But that is a long story. Then it may have gone wrong, but what we did was to outsource what we saw that Arbetsförmedlingen was poor at to external actors. Since then, other interventions have occurred that have influenced this, including completely reformed budgets – including during the last mandate period, when the opposition's budget passed and radically changed the budget for Arbetsförmedlingen by a landslide.

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

Merit Frost Lindberg (M)

Mr. Speaker! It was, after all, the case that a great deal was changed at Arbetsförmedlingen. What was implemented did not work any better, but instead just became more expensive. We are now restoring it.

It was also many of the important local offices with contacts for those who are long-term unemployed and need extra support that disappeared, which this government is now also trying to restore.

The Leader of the Opposition also spoke about economic equality. It is an area where it is incredibly important that we continue to develop.

This government has tried to look at the parental leave and, for example, increased the number of double days so that it will become more flexible and so that it will also become easier for single parents to piece together their daily lives.

We know that it is primarily when one starts a family that women's and men's wages diverge. I cannot help but note that one piece of the puzzle in this, which we are not talking about at all today, is the men's responsibility in this. But we can return to that at another time.

This government has made several parts. The parental leave is one part. We are reviewing the pension system and looking at whether it can be refined so that it will also become more equal in the long run.

I would also like to mention entrepreneurship, as it is something we have focused a lot on. Women do not only have lower wages; they own less and run fewer companies. We have given several assignments to Tillväxtverket to help women start, run, and own companies. We have also looked at the part regarding capital and financing because we know that an extremely small part of the capital, when it comes to company startups, goes to women. We have had round-table discussions.

We have tried to cover all these areas. Is there anything that the member does not think we are including in this? I think we have managed to hit most of it.

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

Helena Vilhelmsson (C)

Mr. Speaker! I just want to conclude what I did not have time to finish last time.

When it comes to the Arbetsförmedlingen offices, it has never been a political decision, but rather a matter of agency management. That was a deficiency in both the previous government and in this one, as neither the Centerpartiet nor anyone else has ever expressed that Arbetsförmedlingen must reduce the number of offices.

On the contrary, Arbetsförmedlingen should be more accessible – among other things through the service centers that were started but which this government, as far as I understand, may be in the process of closing down. There, the accessibility for people to actually meet Arbetsförmedlingen is also lacking.

There were many questions in the air, but I will take the one about entrepreneurship. And the parental leave is very important; I completely agree. Many of the things the member mentions are good, but I do not believe that neither this government nor the previous government, or any of us, have really found the key to how these analyses should become reality.

One thing that we write in our motions and which I believe is very good is that the authorities should be given a mandate to work with nudging – a targeted form of advice. Försäkringskassan is very good at this today. Today, when the technical IT possibilities exist, when one is going to take out their parental insurance, one can write what job one has now and find out what one's pension is estimated to be in 50 years. This is something young people and those starting a family need to know today. Give the authorities targeted mandates to talk about this! I am not so sure that they have it today.

Even when it comes to entrepreneurship, I believe that one can work with nudging. Above all, it must start in school. One must have young entrepreneurship as a school subject, and one must work with prevention and information all the way so that it becomes just as natural to start a company as it is to apply for a job in an industry. If there is something we are missing today, when so few women start companies, it is job opportunities.

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

Leila Ali Elmi (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Discrimination affects people in our society in different ways and at different stages of life. I am grateful that we have a discrimination act that seeks to counteract this.

The seven grounds for discrimination are important. They make visible how people are restricted, and they provide protection. This is not enough, however, because despite strong legislation, there are deficiencies, particularly regarding minorities' right not to be discriminated against on the basis of language.

The protection of minorities is a foundation in every democracy, and in that regard, the Discrimination Act is central. Today, minorities are primarily covered through the grounds of discrimination based on ethnic origin and on religion or other belief, but this does not capture the whole reality.

We know that discrimination is often directed at minorities' languages and against the right to speak and use them in contact with authorities, in school, and in everyday life. This is not sufficiently protected today. Being able to use one's language without fear of harassment or exclusion is a prerequisite for being able to live one's life fully and for being able to practice one's culture.

Mr. Speaker! Sweden has recognized the national minority languages in several laws, but when it comes to protection against discrimination, there are still gaps. This means that people in practice lack effective legal remedies when it is precisely the language that is the basis for the discrimination. This has been repeatedly pointed out in both international reviews and national inquiries, but still, too little is happening.

Mr. Speaker! The Tidö parties argue that the current order is sufficient. I do not share that assessment, because if the protection had been sufficient, we would not have the deficiencies we see today. Miljöpartiet wants to strengthen the discrimination act, but Sverigedemokraterna want to go in the opposite direction.

We previously heard an SD member highlight examples of people who are harmed in different ways. It concerns young and old people who are subjected to crimes. These are serious crimes, and these are problems that we must deal with. However, it is not discrimination in the legal sense.

Discrimination is about being disadvantaged because of gender, sexual orientation, disability, religious belief, etc. To remove the seven grounds for discrimination and replace these with a general concept of improper treatment in practice means weakening the protection against discrimination. Without clear grounds, it becomes easier to question and dismiss experiences of discrimination, regardless of whether it concerns minorities, hbtqi-persons, or persons with disabilities.

Mr. Speaker! Discrimination is complex and manifests in different ways. Therefore, the different grounds for discrimination are crucial in order to truly be able to counter discrimination. I mean, therefore, that the time is ripe to expand the grounds for discrimination. The Government should investigate the possibility of introducing language as a separate ground for discrimination in the Discrimination Act. It is fundamentally about something simple: that minorities should be able to speak their language without risking being treated worse.

With that said, Mr. Speaker, I move for approval of reservation 12.

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

Sara Gille (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Today we are addressing the Committee on Employment's report on equality and measures against discrimination. We in the Sweden Democrats support the report, but we have submitted a specific statement which I will return to in my speech.

The Sweden Democrats' starting point is clear: gender equality policy must be about real results in people's lives. Swedish gender equality policy has for too long been characterized by big words, many plans, and recurring promises, but for the woman who lacks her own livelihood, for the girl who lives under control, and for the one who is denied her freedom, no beautiful words help. What matters is whether the policy actually changes her reality. That is why we have submitted a special statement – to clarify a different political direction and signal that the pace simply must be increased.

Mr. Speaker! Swedish women have the right to demand more than new formulations, beautiful words, and new promises. They have the right to demand results. When problems are allowed to persist year after year, it is not enough to lean back and say that the work is ongoing; instead, clearer leadership and a new direction are required.

For us, equality is fundamentally a question of freedom. It is about the freedom to work, to support oneself, and to make decisions about one's own life. That is where equality policy must begin, Mr. Speaker.

We are clear about the need to return gender equality policy to its core in order to strengthen women's empowerment in practice. More women shall move from exclusion to work, more women shall work full-time, and more women shall have an income of their own to stand on.

Economic independence is the foundation for true equality. This also requires a clear political direction. We want to see reforms that strengthen the drivers for work, that make the path to self-sufficiency shorter, and that break long-term exclusion. We want the measures to be directed where the needs are greatest and that the results be followed up significantly more sharply than what is done today. Equality policy must make a difference in people's everyday lives – not just on paper or in theory.

Mr. Speaker! Despite years of initiatives, big words, and solemn speeches, serious equality problems remain in Sweden. It shows that the government has still not managed to deliver the change that thousands of women are unfortunately waiting for. For far too many women, the reality remains unchanged despite years of promises and initiatives.

At the same time, the equality challenges look different. For some, it is about wage development and career, but for others, it is about something more fundamental: the right to live a free life.

Mr. Speaker! In our special statement, we highlight exactly this. Gender equality policy must, to a greater extent, originate from the women who have the least freedom. Today, their situation is not given sufficient weight in politics. For many of the most vulnerable women, the support comes too late. It becomes too weak, and it hits the wrong target.

There are environments in Sweden where girls and women are restricted in their life choices and where their freedom of movement is curtailed and their freedom is set aside. This is a serious equality problem, and it must be treated as just that. This requires a society that acts earlier, more clearly, and without the hesitation that has characterized this area for all too long. Girls and women living under restrictive norms should be met by a society that stands on their side with protection, support, and clear demands on the surroundings.

Mr. Speaker! A credible equality policy requires precisely that clarity. The same rights and obligations shall apply to everyone. Swedish laws and fundamental values shall apply throughout the entire country, without exception. The State has a responsibility to ensure that every woman in Sweden is covered by the same freedoms and the same rights.

Then a policy is needed that is held accountable for its results. As said, it is not enough to report what has been done. The decisive factor is simply what the policy leads to. Taxpayers' money should be used where it makes a real difference, not get stuck in measures that fail year after year. Authorities should have clear mandates and a clear responsibility for the results.

The Sweden Democrats are clear. An equality policy shall be based on the individual's freedom and responsibility, and it shall prioritize work and self-sufficiency. It shall take the real problems seriously. It shall ensure that all women in Sweden are covered by the same rights. The equality policy must ultimately be tested against a simple question: Do enough women in Sweden receive increased freedom in their lives?

Mr. Speaker! Equality is not achieved through processes but through a policy that delivers results. This is why the Sweden Democrats support the report, even though we have submitted a separate statement. We want to see an equality policy that makes a real difference.

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

Sofia Amloh (S)

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

Truly equal policy that makes a difference in people's everyday lives – those are fine words. I agree with them. It is something we all really must work for, and we have done so many times and for long periods, as I have previously described in this debate. We have moved gender equality policy forward and have been a success story in this area.

Now, the Sweden Democrats are the largest party in the basis of this government and ensure that it can sit in Rosenbad. I hear how the member warmly describes how important equality is for the Sweden Democrats and that reforms need to be put in place, but that this government actually does nothing – this has been said from the Sweden Democrats' side in the speaker's chair. And then the Sweden Democrats say: Then we write a special statement. Is this the member's and the Sweden Democrats' way of influencing this government to achieve real, practical equality policy, when they get something to say about?

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

Sara Gille (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I would like to begin by thanking the member for the question.

Then I want to say that I have never said that this government is doing nothing. This government is doing very much, but it is not doing enough – that is a big difference. We need to gear up, simply, and it is a huge difference. If one then compares what this government does with what the Social Democrats and the previous government did, this government does enormously much.

I am nevertheless glad that we agree on the issue of gender equality and want it to improve. But for it to improve, work must be done. When the member's party sat in government for eight years, absolutely not enough was done.

What I raise in my speech is that this government is doing quite a lot, but it is not being done sufficiently; it needs to be improved.

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

Sofia Amloh (S)

Madam Speaker! The previous government did nothing – I thought I heard it anyway. This government is not doing enough, and the previous government did not do enough either. Now, the Sweden Democrats have for nearly four years had a very strong influence over this government and much to say. Then I wonder what it is that has been achieved that has made this big difference, apart from a particular statement, which we hear about in this debate.

The Social Democrats have actually governed for more than eight years, for quite many decades, and have moved Sweden to become one of the most equal countries. To claim that we are doing nothing, I think, is therefore directly unfair of the member. It is often values that the member usually highlights that we should safeguard. I think there needs to be a slightly more nuanced picture from the member.

I will ask a concrete question to the member based on the fact that the Social Democrats, along with several others, have for many decades built up extensive women's peace work all over Sweden. Now we see that this government has made decisions on legislation that, among other things, causes women's shelters to close all over the country. There are almost 40 that are closed now, and the count continues to tick. Does this government intend to do something so that we have any women's peace work left in this country, or do the Sweden Democrats intend to continue writing specific statements while the women's peace work is dismantled?

(Applause)

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

Sara Gille (SD)

Madam Speaker! I want to remind the members that the Sweden Democrats are not actually in the government. We are a support party to the government, and that is a big difference. We are four parties cooperating, and we are not part of the government; we are a support party. It is a huge difference. That said, we may not get through everything we want, and hence my speech, which was all about that.

I am significantly more satisfied with this government than I was with the previous government. I stand much further from the Social Democrats. But I think – and I stand by it – that our government has done very much but still has a long way to go. The basis for that is largely that we are cleaning up after you. So that is it: We are cleaning up after you.

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

Ciczie Weidby (V)

Madam Speaker! Today we are debating issues that concern the core of what an equal society is – and what it is not yet. Discrimination limits people's freedom, opportunities, and dignity. Therefore, good intentions are not enough. The ambitions of legislation must also function in reality.

Let me begin with the situation for people who are dependent on a guide dog or assistance dog. These dogs are not just a means of help among others; they are a prerequisite for being able to live an independent life. Despite the fact that the Discrimination Act includes protection against lack of accessibility, it turns out that very many still face a lot of obstacles in their everyday lives. It is unacceptable.

If the law does not take hold in people's actual lives, it must be strengthened. Therefore, a review of the legislation and an evaluation of how it is actually complied with regarding disability as a ground for discrimination are needed. Therefore, I move for approval of reservation number 6.

Madam Speaker! Age discrimination is another area where reality lags behind ambitions. We know that older people are systematically disadvantaged, not least on the labor market. Studies show that the probability of even receiving a response to a job application decreases as early as age 40, which is staggering for someone who thinks that in one's 50s, one is still in the middle of their life. For women, it goes even faster. It is not about individual cases but about structures and norms that value people differently solely based on age.

It is not enough to lean back and simply state that work is underway. Ambitions must be raised. Sweden needs a unified strategy against ageism. But even that is not enough. The mechanisms of discrimination are very complex and difficult to prove. Therefore, more powerful tools are needed. I mean that a crisis commission against discrimination could gather research, analyze the conditions of working life, and present more concrete proposals, including stricter sanctions, to ensure a sustainable working life and a functioning supply of skills.

Madam Speaker! The anti-discrimination legislation must also develop in step with society. Sweden receives recurring criticism for, for example, language not being included as a ground for discrimination. It is a deficiency. Language can be completely decisive for people's opportunities to participate fully in society. Therefore, that should also be investigated, with the goal of truly strengthening that protection.

At the same time, we must ensure that the law applies where it is needed most. Reports of ethnic profiling within the police's activities are serious. They risk undermining confidence in the rule of law. Those who are subjected to discrimination by the public sector must be able to obtain redress. Therefore, the Discrimination Act should be expanded so that even the police's actions are fully covered and so that supervision can take place in an effective manner.

Madam Speaker! Discrimination is not a marginal problem. It affects people's life chances, the functioning of the labor market, and trust in society. Therefore, more than words are required. Action, stricter laws, and a clear political will are also required.

A society that takes equality seriously does not accept that people are shut out. That society ensures that rights do not just exist on paper but also in reality and for everyone.

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

Jamal El-Haj (-)

Madam Speaker! In the report, I have six motions, which I wish to highlight, but no motion for a decision.

Madam Speaker! It is time that we take responsibility for countering hate and discrimination, regardless of where it comes from. Hate has no place in our country.

It is our responsibility to ensure that every human being is treated with dignity and respect. To succeed in that, leadership is required that does not build walls but builds bridges. Leadership is required that is free from prejudice and that works actively to unite society instead of dividing it. We must never accept that people are divided into an us and them.

Madam Speaker! Today we see a worrying development where the fight against hate risks being weakened by politicization. Antisemitism is a serious and growing problem, which must be fought uncompromisingly. But we also see that antisemitism is sometimes used as a political tool. Antisemitism must never become a partisan issue. It must be a self-evident part of our common responsibility.

In the same way, we must speak plainly about Islamophobia. Islamophobia and antisemitism are not competing problems. They are expressions of the same thing: hatred toward people because of who they are. Trying to rank them is meaningless. Setting groups against each other is directly harmful. When we do that, we weaken the fight against hatred instead of strengthening it.

Madam Speaker! Freedom of religion is a fundamental democratic right. It is enshrined in both international law and our own constitution. Every human being shall have the right to believe, to practice their faith, and to manifest their identity. Yet we see that this right is violated, both globally and here in Sweden. When people are restricted, suspected, or discriminated against because of their religion, it is our duty to react.

We live in a society characterized by diversity. It is not a problem to be managed. It is a strength to be defended. But diversity also requires something from us: the will to meet, to understand, and to stand up for one another. When people meet, fear decreases. When fear decreases, hatred is weakened.

Madam Speaker! At the same time, we see that Islamophobia is growing in Sweden. It manifests in discrimination, in hate propaganda, and in everyday racism. And it affects people in their daily lives – at work, in school, and on the street. Unlike other groups, such as Jews and Roma, Muslims lack a specific minority protection. It increases their vulnerability.

At the same time, antisemitism remains a serious problem. We must be clear that Jews as a people never bear responsibility for the state of Israel's politics. To claim otherwise is antisemitism. And it must always be combated.

But we must also dare to speak about a dangerous development in the debate. When antisemitism is used as an argument to legitimize the suspicion of Muslims, a false conflict is created between minorities. This divides. It harms and weakens the fight against all hate.

We must instead stand up for the principle that no group's rights can be defended by undermining another group's rights.

Madam Speaker! An inclusive society is also about safeguarding everyone's right to be themselves. Sweden has come a long way regarding the rights of hbtqi persons. But we are not there yet. Many still live with insecurity, discrimination, and ill health. Therefore, more than legislation is required. Knowledge, preventive work, and a clear political responsibility are also required – in schools, in healthcare, in working life, and in our international engagement.

Madam Speaker! Violence by men against women is one of our greatest societal problems. Despite efforts, the violence continues. And behind the statistics lies a large dark figure. It is not just about crime. It is also about power, about freedom, and about the right to live without fear. As long as women are not safe, society is not equal. And as long as society is not equal, it is also not fully democratic.

The economic gaps between women and men persist, and in some cases, they are increasing. Women earn less. Women-dominated occupations are valued lower. This is not just a matter of equality. It is also a matter of justice.

Women born abroad are particularly vulnerable. They face obstacles due to both gender and discrimination. They find it harder to establish themselves and run a greater risk of falling into economic vulnerability.

Madam Speaker! Equality, freedom of religion, and the fight against hate and discrimination are not separate issues. They are connected. They are all about what kind of society we want to be: a society where people are pitted against each other or a society where we stand up for one another.

We must choose cohesion over division, respect over suspicion, and solidarity over hatred. In the end, this is not about political choices. It is about what kind of society we are to be. It is about a simple but decisive principle: that every human being has equal value and the same right to live in freedom and dignity. It is not just a principle we must defend. It is a responsibility we must live up to.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(A decision was to be taken on 15 April.)

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