Restraining order - increased protection for vulnerable persons

Sanna Backeskog (S)

Madam Speaker! Over a hundred times every day, all year round, a report of a woman being assaulted is made in Sweden. The most dangerous place for women in Sweden today is the home. There, women are controlled, tortured, raped and murdered year-round.

When a woman succeeds in separating from a violent man, the entire society must be there, as well as the law. Stopping men's violence against women is a matter of safety, freedom, justice, and respect.

To you who are listening to this debate now, who are yourself a victim or who, like me, are involved in your local kvinnojour, I want to say the following: Sometimes, or rather often, it can feel incredibly desolate – as if we are just treading water and getting nowhere while women and children are abused or forced to live hidden and, in the worst cases, are murdered. We have every right to feel that way – to be angry and desperate over the toxic and socially dangerous norms of masculinity, the global and international pushback against equality, and the major deficits in the welfare system, which is supposed to be there for all of us when we need it.

We must see the actual displacement effects resulting from gang crime and new recruitment, which we will, of course, take most seriously, but which are now taking increasing focus, time, and resources from the Riksdag, the judicial authorities, and the government.

We know that children who grow up with violence in the home, either by being exposed to it themselves or by seeing dad hit mom, run a higher risk of being exposed again in adulthood or of becoming perpetrators themselves or being drawn into gang crime. One of our absolutely most important priorities must be to protect children from being exposed to violence in the home – of course primarily to safeguard children's right to a safe, violence-free upbringing but also to build protective barriers against violence for the entire society.

Madam Speaker! We Social Democrats have long highlighted violence against women, honor-related violence, and violence against children as one of the two main priorities in justice policy. During our time in government, a number of penalties have been toughened to emphasize the seriousness of violence against women. New criminal classifications have been developed: the consent law, honor crimes, and the child peace crime. We added special investigators to the police.

Today we are debating the bill Contact Prohibition – an expanded protection for vulnerable persons. Contact prohibition, i.e., a prohibition against, for example, sending SMS messages, approaching the woman physically, or being in the vicinity of the woman's residence or workplace, is of great importance for vulnerable women and children.

In Sweden, around 30,000 people live with a confidentiality marking or protected civil registration. Many of them are women and children fleeing in their own country from a life-threatening man. They belong to the most vulnerable members of society. As has been said: When a woman succeeds in separating from a violent man, the entire society must be there, as well as the law. Regarding the contact prohibition act, many voices have been raised that a review needs to be made, both by those affected by violence themselves as well as the women's shelter movement, authorities, and politicians. The protection must be strengthened.

The Swedish National Audit Office also confirms that picture. In November last year, we debated here in the chamber their audit of the state's protection of threatened persons. Regarding the issue of restraining orders, the Swedish National Audit Office saw, among other things, that the prosecutors' decisions on restraining orders are primarily influenced by previous criminality and far too little by the risk of crime, persecution, or harassment. It was noted that there are large and persistent differences regarding the proportion of granted restraining orders across the country and that restraining orders with ankle bracelets do not function as an effective protection in the current situation.

We Social Democrats see these problems. We saw them recurring in conversations with victims of violence when we were in government. Therefore, during the last parliamentary term, we Social Democrats commissioned an inquiry that would evaluate the application of the law on restraining orders, take a position on whether the law is modernly and purposefully designed, and investigate whether the possibility of issuing restraining orders should be expanded, including regarding the geographical area. This work was taken further by the current government, and today we are debating that bill.

The Social Democrats support the bill and welcome the fact that there is a broad political consensus that the protection of threatened persons needs to be strengthened and that the perpetrator's freedom must be more restricted than it is today. We have, however, submitted a specific statement on this issue, where we wish to elaborate on our position.

We view it very positively that circumstances other than previous crimes shall be given greater importance in the risk assessment and that improper surveillance is introduced as a new ground for contact prohibitions. At the same time, we want to emphasize that it is of central importance that the risk assessments actually function as intended by the relevant authorities having the resources and other prerequisites required for this. Furthermore, it is important that the process for applying for a contact prohibition is clear and easy to understand for the protected person, with the victim's freedom and protection in focus.

We also view very positively that extended and especially extended restraining orders can cover larger geographical areas than today and that when an especially extended restraining order is decided, particular consideration shall be given to that the need for protection for the person the order intends to protect is met. It is good that women and children living under threat from a life-threatening man will now receive stronger protection and greater freedom of movement. That the woman shall be able to maintain work, school, social relations and leisure interests without risking being subjected to crimes by the person the restraining order intends to protect must be a right that weighs heavier than his freedom of movement.

However, this does not mean that there is no room to further strengthen the contact prohibition legislation based on the protected person's right to a safe and free life. In the Gender Equality Authority's referral response, it was stated that the possibility should be investigated to, in cases where the threat is extra large, instead restrict the prohibited person's freedom of movement within a certain geographical area. When a contact prohibition is issued, the prohibited person is informed about which area they are not allowed to stay in, and thus the geographical area where the protected person is located is revealed at the same time. This can be particularly serious and dangerous if the threat is honor-related and several different people can pose a threat.

Madam Speaker! I want to conclude by underlining that the entire society's collective resources must be there for the one living under threat from a life-threatening person. The Government must ensure that the judicial authorities, the Swedish Tax Agency, the women's shelters, the healthcare system, the school, and the social services have the knowledge and the resources required to cooperate, in order to stop the perpetrator and ensure women's and children's right to support measures and a life in safety and freedom.

I vote in favor of the government's proposition.

(Applause)

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

Torsten Elofsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Sanna Backeskog, for the speech! I can state that we largely agree on much when it comes to violence in close relationships.

I have a question that is not directly linked to the restraining order but still concerns the police's work with crime victims and victims of violence in close relationships. It concerns the fact that we have made decisions regarding increased information exchange between authorities. The police have often been critical and meant that one came in far too late – had one received the information at an earlier stage, one might have been able to act.

I have received signals from SKR that the Social Democrats are hesitant regarding information exchange when it concerns, for example, social services and child health centers. It would be interesting for me to know how you here in the Riksdag, from the Social Democrats' side, view information exchange. Often it is at the child health centers, in health and medical care, and in social services that one sees the early signals. Previously, there has been secrecy regarding this, but now it has been opened up for information exchange.

How do the Social Democrats view that possibility? Do you stand behind that legislation and that information exchange should take place to a greater extent than before?

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

Sanna Backeskog (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member Torsten Elofsson, for an important question! Information exchange is often crucial precisely for detecting cases with particularly ruthless perpetrators who operate within the walls of the home. They are not discovered so easily, and they are not seen so easily. That is why it is important that there is a stronger possibility for information exchange today.

I believe very much in forms of cooperation between, for example, social services, the police, and schools. The government has established cooperation in the form of Bob-councils when it comes to the risk of gang crime. I do not understand why it has not been established specifically regarding issues of women's peace, violence against children, or violence against women in the home. I believe that would be very important.

In Bollnäs, there is something called Trygghetens hus. I recommend that the members take a look at it. There, social services and the police work together in an incredibly close cooperation. They also have close contact with health and medical care, both primary care and psychiatry. They are also out and meeting young people a lot. This is something I believe in.

During our time in government, several such forms of cooperation were started around the country. But now we are receiving signals that they seem to be being shut down. I would therefore like to pose the question back to Member Elofsson: Is this a task that you would like to carry forward and where you want to give clearer mandates to cooperate locally and on-site to detect violence against children in the home?

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

Torsten Elofsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Sanna Backeskog, for the answer!

I am still a bit hesitant. Cooperation can occur in general terms, but when it comes to pointing out individuals and persons, it suddenly becomes a barrier. I am referring to the majority in SKR, who, with the Socialdemokrater at the forefront, chose to rule out parts of the proposal and stated that they do not want to participate in this. That concerned children and young people. In this case, it concerns crimes in close relationships, which also affects children and young people.

So, it is more about providing concrete and good information to the police, so that the police have something to work from – not the more general forms of cooperation, because on that point we are in complete agreement. But how do you view breaking confidentiality for individual individuals, in this case regarding social services and health and medical care?

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

Sanna Backeskog (S)

Madam Speaker! If I understand the member correctly, it means that the one-sided exchange of information implies that the government parties want it to always be an obligation for health care and social services to inform the police at the slightest suspicion of any type of crime, while there is no corresponding obligation whatsoever for the police to inform about what they know.

I believe in a mutual cooperation with a mutual exchange of information, where one can inform each other and put the puzzle together with a stronger possibility to share information. I believe that is absolutely crucial precisely so that we can detect violence in close relationships and especially perhaps when children are exposed to violence in the home. I believe that it is a crucial issue that we can work better for the vulnerable children.

Speaking of vulnerable children – now, Member Elofsson will not be able to answer this question – I would like to turn the spotlight towards those who live under threat and are in flight. There, the women's shelter movement is sounding the alarm that fewer and fewer children are being placed in women's shelters. This is partly because protected housing must be closed down, because the law that you have introduced, which is fundamentally good, is underfunded. It also has to do with the fact that the municipalities and social services have ever decreasing resources to place women and children in protected housing together.

Now I know that the member cannot answer, but I truly hope that the government takes this further and heeds the despair of the women's shelters over the children who today do not receive the protection they truly need.

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

Helena Vilhelmsson (C)

Madam Speaker! Today we are debating the government's bill on amended contact ban legislation. It is good, and it is long overdue. Many are the evaluations that have shown serious deficiencies regarding how the regulatory framework is applied today. This applies not least to the Swedish National Audit Office's latest report, which was mentioned here.

But there are also flaws in the government's current proposal. I want to highlight a few. One is that the presumption for a restraining order should not be excluded for a shared residence. The presumption rule means that the crime victim's need for protection can be met promptly. It also leads to greater predictability, which is a matter of legal certainty. That is precisely why it is strange that the government has chosen to exempt those situations where the restraining order concerns a shared residence. It is even unreasonable. It will mean more in-depth investigations and longer processing times, and these extensions occur at the expense of the protected person's safety and privacy.

Madam Speaker! Today, it is almost exclusively previous crimes that form the basis for restraining orders. It has led to the sometimes horrific situation where a woman is forced to live in hiding while the person threatening her goes free.

The government's bill is truly a step in the right direction here. It is about ensuring that factors other than previous crimes are weighed in the assessment, so that restraining orders can be issued in many more cases than today. However, it is important that the assessment does not place too one-sided focus on just those factors mentioned in the bill, for example mental illness and mental ill-health. The risk assessment needs to be broadened, so that, for example, aggressive or controlling behaviors, which are not punishable today, can also serve as a basis for issuing restraining orders.

Mr. Speaker, we are therefore deciding today on a system that has functioned for a long time and which limits the crime victim, who in the vast majority of cases is a woman who has done nothing other than happen to fall in love with the wrong man. At the same time, the perpetrator goes free, or else the perpetrator can largely continue to live a normal life and have a largely normal everyday life.

I actually get a bit of a chill when I read the texts about the purpose of the current legislation, but also when I read arguments for changing the current law. I think we are in a value-judgment blunder – I will try to describe it a little bit.

We can assume that contact prohibitions were introduced a long time ago as a measure to curb domestic violence or family quarrels, as it was called at the time. Instead of convicting someone for, for example, assault, it became a lesser solution, a plan B. It was difficult to convict. Therefore, contact prohibitions were introduced.

It is clear that the intention was for a restraining order to first apply to a residence, a property. But it didn't really work in reality. The protected person could, in fact, stand in her apartment and see through the window that the perpetrator was standing outside and waiting for her.

I quote an expression in the bill: ”The Government considers, however, that it appears reasonable that the victim, in cases where it can be assumed that an ordinary restraining order is not sufficient, may be entitled to a larger protected area than what is possible today.”

I can think that a person who has not committed a crime should be able to expect that all areas are peaceful areas.

They then introduced an extended restraining order that could apply to several properties, a block, and then even a particularly extended restraining order that could apply to one or more larger areas adjacent to the protected person's residence or workplace.

But even this doesn't really help. That is why, I think, one speaks in the bill about being able to have larger areas, perhaps an entire municipality.

But I quote again. ”The possibility of expanding the prohibited area has been a step in trying to achieve increased freedom and security for the person protected by the prohibition. The protected person shall therefore not have to, for example, refrain from going to a playground or a shop near their residence for fear of encountering the person in question.”

Madam Speaker! Wow! A woman should be able to feel safe even at a playground or in a shop near her home – thank goodness! Otherwise, one might think that a crime victim who has not committed any crime should be able to feel safe pretty much everywhere.

This is a bit provocative, in short.

Madam Speaker! It is also provoking that the legal text constantly problematizes whether the measure is proportionate from the perpetrator's perspective. It is discussed and established that a Swedish citizen, according to the Instrument of Government and the European Convention, is guaranteed the freedom to move within the realm, to leave the realm, to move freely there, and to freely choose their place of residence.

But this clearly does not apply to the vulnerable women. A restraining order implies exactly the opposite of this for the protection officers.

The problem is that specially extended restraining orders do not really help – they are based on a flawed logic, in my opinion and the Centerpartiet's – regardless of how large the areas are.

Madam Speaker! A life is, in fact, much more than just work, school, and the grocery store. It is leisure activities. It is hobbies. It is socializing with family and friends. It is vacation trips, work conferences, spontaneous outings, winter break, summer break, new partners, and family reunions. Most of this rarely takes place within a single municipality.

Today, it is all too common for the perpetrator to stand and wait at the location where the crime victim's family lives, which may be in the same municipality or another.

The basic prerequisite must be that it is always the perpetrator, not the victim, who must adapt.

Centerpartiet has for a long time maintained that this must be fundamentally redone, which is also what the Gender Equality Authority points out in its referral response. It is about a different order. Instead of delimiting a protection zone around the protected person, one should establish a restriction zone around the perpetrator which they may not leave without notifying. The perpetrator then lives in one place, works in one place, and has a grocery store in one place and is allowed to stay around there.

The only reasonable thing is, of course, that the protected person should be able to live their life in freedom – without fear and without geographical restrictions. The government must therefore urgently conduct a review of the entire restraining order system which is based on such a principle.

The Centre Party naturally stands behind all its reservations, but I move for approval only of reservation 3.

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

Katja Nyberg (SD)

Madam Speaker! Violence in close relationships, stalking, threats and harassment are realities that many, especially women, live with every day in our country. It is our duty as legislators to ensure that society stands on the side of the victims – the one who is threatened, persecuted or lives in fear should be able to rely on the state protecting them.

It is about increasing safety. It is about how contact prohibitions in their current form often are not sufficient. Perpetrators can continue to harass and intimidate their victims with ruthlessness and a sense of impunity, which is unacceptable.

With this proposal, we take several important steps:

Protection zones become a reality. The police shall be able to use technology such as geofencing to monitor that the prohibition is respected.

Electronic monitoring becomes the main rule. In cases of extended and particularly extended restraining orders, electronic monitoring shall be used as the main rule. It will no longer be the exception but rather the norm when the threat level is serious.

There will be stricter penalties. Those who violate a restraining order with an ankle bracelet shall, in normal cases, be sentenced to imprisonment. This is completely in line with the Tidö Agreement, where we want tangible and real consequences for those who do not respect law and order.

Madam Speaker! The Sweden Democrats have long pushed for precisely these changes. We have listened to police, to prosecutors, to social services and – most importantly – to women and children who are repeatedly forced to flee, hide, change names or live in constant fear that the perpetrator will appear.

It is not the victim who should have to flee. It is the perpetrator who should be restricted. This is precisely an ideological dividing line. For us in Sverigedemokraterna, the rule of law is not just a formality. It is a fundamental duty to protect honest people from threats, violence, and oppression, regardless of whether the threat comes from a former partner, a neighbor, or someone who is part of a honor-related network.

It is also important to emphasize that we are now giving the Police Authority greater opportunities to act. With increased powers comes also responsibility. There must be the right competence, the right resources, and clear guidelines. That is why the Tidö parties are carrying out a historic investment in the justice system – not only so that laws should be written but also so that they should be followed and upheld.

Madam Speaker! Some parties have, as usual, had objections, particularly regarding privacy and legal certainty. Concern has been expressed over what an ankle bracelet can mean for the perpetrator's life situation. It is symptomatic. For these parties, the perpetrator is at the center. We choose to put the victim first.

It does not mean that we ignore the rule of law, on the contrary. It is about proportions. The person who has been convicted – or where there are sufficient grounds for a restraining order – has put themselves in that situation. In that case, society's loyalty should lie with the one who is threatened, not with the one who threatens.

Madam Speaker! This is a step in the right direction, but it is not finished. We need to continue investigating how restraining orders can be combined with harsher penalties, better support measures for victims, as well as clearer coordination between the police, prosecutors, and social services.

The safety of Sweden's women and children is something that must not be compromised. Those who threaten, stalk, or break the law shall face tangible consequences.

Against this background, I move for approval of the committee's proposal in the report.

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

Ulrika Westerlund (MP)

Madam Speaker! In the report we are now debating, several proposals from the government regarding increased protection for vulnerable persons in terms of contact prohibitions are addressed. The purpose is to be able to make it possible to issue more contact prohibitions, strengthen the crime-preventive function, and achieve real protection for the vulnerable.

For the Green Party, men's violence against women and children is a highest priority issue. Today, victims of violence, women and children, all too often have their lives and their freedom restricted. They are the crime victims, but they live deprived of freedom. From the side of society, it must be very clear that it is the one who commits violence and oppression who should be restricted, not the crime victim. In all too many cases, the violence continues in different forms after the victim of violence has left the relationship. It is high time that we begin to see so-called post-violence as a special type of violence and take measures to prevent it.

Miljöpartiet welcomes that the government is now continuing the work that we began in government. In today's regulatory framework, there are still deficiencies that we must address. One such example is, as we have pointed out for a long time, that a restraining order must apply to an entire municipality or larger geographical areas than today in order to strengthen the safety and freedom of women at risk of violence. Against that background, we are positive that the government in the bill proposes that specially extended restraining orders should be able to cover larger geographical areas. It is an important proposal that can contribute to more comprehensive protection as well as safer and more secure conditions for those at risk. Women shall be able to enjoy their freedom of movement; it is the perpetrator who must adapt their life.

In the government, we also made it possible to combine more extended restraining orders with ankle bracelets as a primary measure – an important measure to strengthen the safety for women exposed to violence. We are therefore positive towards the government reviewing additional situations where restraining orders can be issued. We also stand behind the government's proposal for expanded electronic surveillance where police and prosecutors are given the opportunity to check that the restraining order is complied with through an ankle bracelet.

Madam Speaker! Miljöpartiet also wants to emphasize that a restraining order in many cases is not alone sufficient to meet the protection needs that exist. We therefore want to develop the legislation to provide better protection for women who are subjected to violence, including all dimensions of violence. We want to see increased knowledge among the police, social services, prosecutors, and other authorities regarding vulnerability to violence and how those subjected to violence can be protected.

Women and children must also be protected at an early stage by being offered a place in protected housing. Unfortunately, it is expensive for the municipalities to place people in protected housing. The availability of protected housing for those exposed to violence therefore risks being governed by budget and not by need. We cannot have that. The environment of a protected housing, which is both crime-preventing and crime-inhibiting, can also be seen as a partially state matter. Therefore, we in Miljöpartiet want the state to cover half the cost for placements in protected housing. We also want to introduce a relocation allowance in the social insurance system to counteract the economic consequences that can particularly affect women with protected identities who are forced into repeated relocations.

Madam Speaker! Miljöpartiet also wants to point out that the expanded possibilities to issue restraining orders must not be given a one-sided focus. This has also been emphasized by several referral bodies, for example, Advokatsamfundet and Myndigheten för delaktighet. The Government proposes that circumstances other than previous criminality should be given greater importance in risk assessment. As Sveriges Kvinnoorganisationer highlight, we need to move away from current practice, that is, that a person needs to have been prosecuted previously to be ordered a restraining order, and ensure that risk assessments become more comprehensive and also cover aggressive or controlling behaviors that are not punishable.

At the same time, the Agency for Participation argues that the state of knowledge in the area is deficient, which may affect the outcome of the proposals. For example, it is difficult to know how personal factors such as mental illness, serious mental disorders, and substance abuse affect the risk of committing violence. On several occasions, the agency has pointed out that the lack of knowledge in the area risks leading to poorer prevention work and that fewer perpetrators of violence are detected and managed, as well as to legal uncertainty and incorrect risk assessments.

It is a step in the right direction that factors other than previous criminality are weighed in the assessment, so that contact prohibitions can be issued in more cases. It is, however, important that the assessment does not place too limited a focus on the factors mentioned in the proposal, such as mental illness. We share the position of Sveriges Kvinnoorganisationer that it is important that a comprehensive assessment is made in each individual case and that the assessment does not solely weigh in the factors that are listed in the proposition. In view of this, I move for approval of our reservation 1, which concerns this matter of more circumstances in the risk assessment.

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

Fredrik Kärrholm (M)

Madam Speaker! Far too many women in Sweden live with a constant fear of an imminent threat of violence, not infrequently from a violent former partner – fear when someone knocks on the door, fear when footsteps approach from behind on the street, fear when the phone pings. During my years as a police officer, I have far too many times encountered victims who have lacked sufficient support.

That is why I am both grateful and proud to stand here today in the Riksdag's rostrum and present new legislation that will result in better protection against men who stalk, harass, and assault. Restraining orders shall be able to be issued in more cases and become more comprehensive. At the same time, we are tightening the penalties for violent crimes, sexual crimes, and aggravated crimes against children. For far too long, the justice system has compromised between the needs of crime victims and perpetrators. The Moderates, however, always stand unreservedly on the side of the crime victim. Now we ensure that the vulnerable receive the support they deserve.

The bill we are debating here today represents the most extensive reform package in this area in over a decade. The legislation currently on the table aims for more restraining orders to be issued, for them to be issued earlier in the process, and for the protection to become real and not just formal.

An important point that has been mentioned here earlier is that we are introducing undue surveillance as a basis for a restraining order. This is a modernization that responds to today's reality. People in vulnerable situations testify to how their partner or former partner maps out every step they take through GPS tracking, fake profiles on social media, and bugging of phones. These are abuses that we need to take as seriously as physical violence. The new provision makes it possible to intervene even before the violence becomes a fact.

We also ensure that the risk assessment becomes more nuanced. Threats can exist even without convictions. Therefore, we now establish that even persecution, psychological impact, and other circumstances, for example substance abuse or controlling behavior, shall be able to form the basis for a restraining order. It is a step away from an overly legalistic view and towards a more reality-based legal protection.

Restraining orders can now also be issued for the purpose of protecting the defendant and witnesses in legal proceedings. We have seen far too many cases where witnesses have been intimidated into silence, where crime victims have withdrawn, and where justice has had to step back in the face of fear. If the rule of law is to function, it is required that those who dare to testify also know that the legal system protects them. Recently, the possibility to testify anonymously during a preliminary investigation and in criminal cases in court was also introduced.

Madam Speaker! A particularly important piece of news is the presumption rule: that a restraining order shall be issued as a rule of thumb after serious crimes in close relationships. It is nothing that the woman should have to fight to obtain. The person who has been convicted of committing violence against their partner or their child shall not automatically have the right to resume contact. On the contrary, society shall clearly signal that the protection of the victim comes first.

We also ensure that there will be a tightening of the penalties. Anyone who violates an expanded restraining order risks, with this bill, up to two years of imprisonment. It is a necessary marking that a prohibition from the state is not a request but a binding decision; whoever breaks it shall face tangible consequences.

I particularly want to highlight that the maximum penalty for aggravated child abuse is now being increased to six years of imprisonment. Children who witness violence do not only live with the trauma here and now, but it affects their entire future. This legislative change is an acknowledgment that we in the Swedish Riksdag and the entire society take the long-term damage caused by violence in the home seriously.

In conclusion, Madam Speaker, I want to say that safety is not just a feeling. In a sense, it is a right. The state's primary task is to protect its citizens from threats, violence, and oppression. These legislative changes are an important part of fulfilling that task.

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

Helena Vilhelmsson (C)

Madam Speaker! I thank the member for an engaged speech in which he, in an exemplary manner, concisely summarized the advantages of and the positive effects of this bill, which we are in particular in agreement on.

I would still like to problematize a bit. A saying – not just from the government and its coalition partners, but from everyone – is that one should always put the crime victim at the center and that one should use all means to limit the perpetrator and not the crime victim. In my speech, I gave many examples of how that is not the case and that we have in some way become stuck over the decades in a valuation that concerns that the proposed proposal is the absolute best for the crime victim. So that is not the case. Regardless of how large an area a restraining order is issued for, we know that the woman, which it is most often about, actually needs to go somewhere else – perhaps to another municipality, where the family lives. Regardless of how it is, it is the crime victim – not the perpetrator – who becomes limited. It could involve work conferences, excursions or school holidays, or visiting the family, who live somewhere else.

Fundamentally, I and the Center Party believe that this should be redone. There should be an arrangement where a limitation zone is introduced for the perpetrator instead of a protection zone for the crime victim.

Given that the member is a police officer, I am genuinely interested in how you think this could work. Is this not a proper way to protect the crime victim?

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

Fredrik Kärrholm (M)

Madam Speaker! I would like to thank the member of the Centre Party for a very constructive debate. I think it is very positive that instead of the usual political pie-throwing, where everyone does everything right while the opponents do everything wrong, we have a more objective debate with constructive proposals. I wish that we more often had this type of very constructive and concrete improvement proposals presented from the rostrum and that we thereby had the privilege of debating them.

The Act on Contact Prohibitions – or, as it was previously called, visit prohibitions – has existed since the 1980s and has gradually developed and improved. One would have to be extremely simple-minded to believe that with the legislative changes we make here today, we achieve perfect legislation. I believe we all agree that it is important to evaluate the law we are now enacting and see if it can be further improved.

I appreciate the problematization and think that what was presented is very important to look further into, even if one can possibly see a certain issue linked to the European Convention's rights when it comes to what requirements are placed on this type of liberty-restricting measure without there being a conviction in a criminal case. With that said, I really hope to be able to read more about this and take part of it in some form in the future in order to be able to have a better-informed opinion.

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

Helena Vilhelmsson (C)

Madam Speaker! It is this that I consider dangerous. This legislation was introduced in the 80s. We have gradually changed it; it has been built upon and built upon. We have finally landed on – and I hope everyone agrees on this – that it is a flawed way of thinking. Regardless of what everyone thinks, believes, and does, it is still the crime victim who is restricted – not the perpetrator. When it goes so far as that in the government's proposition, formulations are used such as that the crime victim needs to have a larger protected area than what is possible today, or that the protection person should not have to refrain from going to a playground or a shop near their residence for fear of bumping into the person in question, it becomes completely wrong.

I thought it was interesting that the member brought up that there is a certain issue with restrictions on liberty in relation to the Instrument of Government and the European Convention. Yes, that is the case. It is because we have the wrong perspective. That leads us somewhere in the question: How willing is the member, the government, and the coalition parties to actually not drop this issue but move forward and initiate a new investigation where one can truly begin to look at the question of a restricted area instead of a prohibited area? Somewhere, this is the only reasonable thing.

A concrete question could be whether the member is ready to, together with other actors, go to the forefront to ensure that a new investigation, in which this issue is included, is initiated.

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

Fredrik Kärrholm (M)

Madam Speaker! I think it is a bit too exaggerated to suggest that this is completely misguided. One should be very careful about drawing general conclusions based on individual experiences, but I nevertheless want to venture to say that my experience makes it valid that the women to whom I, in my capacity as a police officer, have had the privilege of telling that the former partner who threatened them has been granted a restraining order have been extremely grateful for this and experienced a greater freedom.

We are now seeing that it can become an extended restraining order which, in some cases, can apply to an entire municipality. That creates a freedom. With that said, I think, again, that it is very good and positive to look further into what additional reforms we can implement to protect women who are victims of violence and threats and increase their freedom.

This is also something that I think reminds me of the strength of our government base. We have a fantastic cooperation with the Liberals, the Christian Democrats, and the Sweden Democrats, where constructive negotiations are being conducted on how the policy should be developed. The foundation is the Tidö Agreement, and it is being developed all the time. To the extent that the member hopes for further and even better reforms that can increase women's freedom, I dare to venture to assert that that hope lies in the government base, where a continuous and constructive dialogue about the policy's development takes place.

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

Gudrun Nordborg (V)

Madam Speaker! I vote in favor of the proposal in the committee report and of the government bill on which it is based.

I want to emphasize that this is very much awaited. It is also the case that this has been an issue that has largely been driven by the previous government, and it is important that this is completed. I also want, like several others here in the speaker's chair, to emphasize that we are far from finished with this issue.

When the women's movement – not least the shelters – began to demand what was called visitation bans in the late 80s, it was in itself, as some have managed to mention here, an important reform and a new way of thinking. Now it is called a contact ban, and I want us to take note of that. Here, in a sense, the focus is on the fact that it should only be the physical movement of a threatening person that means something for the person who has been or risks being subjected to threats and violence.

Even letters, SMS messages, and information on social media, which may not be clearly directed at a person but still reach the one who has been a victim or is afraid of becoming a victim, become a retraumatization that is serious for adults and even more so for children. Even here, the reforms must protect women and children. That a perpetrator or probable perpetrator makes themselves known is very dramatic.

It also becomes clear that we may need this instrument in more constellations than those we are thinking of primarily. Violence in close relationships affecting women and children is obviously the most serious, but this shall also be usable to protect the victim and witnesses in legal processes and facilitate for the judicial system to obtain correct information that can contribute to acquitting or convicting judgments. Being able to support those who are victims and witnesses in other situations, I want to mark as additionally important.

If we limit ourselves to the physical movements, it is extremely important that the protection area is expanded. A passage in the texts that recurs several times is that they want the area for the restraining order to be so large that the police have time to arrive if the perpetrator approaches the boundary of it. I believe there are huge challenges here, but I really hope that they can be tackled. There are, after all, great differences depending on where in the country one is located. A municipality in upper Norrland is huge, while a municipality in southern Sweden is quite limited in area. The ambition must, however, be to live up to this promise so that the area becomes sufficiently large.

It is quite rare for children to be protected persons. However, it has increased gradually, and now 8–10 percent of decisions regarding contact prohibitions concern children. A very important point in the bill and the report is that children shall have the right to their own representative. If the child is to be protected by a contact prohibition, a special representative shall be appointed, i.e., a lawyer who speaks for the child and makes the child's voice and needs clear. If the child is instead restricted by a contact prohibition, the child shall have a public defender. Both of these aspects are, of course, important.

We must repeatedly emphasize that the risk of violence escalating is greatest when a woman is about to break up from a relationship or has recently done so. There is a major lack of insight here. A couple of years ago, the Gender Equality Authority looked at custody disputes and was able to show in its report that violence was involved in 64 percent of cases regarding custody and visitation.

The steps we are now trying to take are steps in a direction towards us realizing promises and obligations we have committed to in documents on human rights. You are surely thinking of the Convention on the Rights of the Child because I mentioned children and custody disputes, but it is also about the Istanbul Convention, which is mentioned far too rarely. In that, there are strong requirements that the state should be able to protect both women and children better.

There is other criticism to take to heart. The National Audit Office has audited much in its report, and Noa's latest report shows that the police could have prevented more cases of deadly violence against women if they had been more skilled. The competence in the entire justice system must be sharpened, and this is what Vänsterpartiet motions for year after year. Competence development is also never finished, because new research findings and facts constantly emerge that need to be taken in to be able to provide a reasonable and fair protection.

In today's media, we also see that a lot is not being handled correctly. In one case, which based on the material that has been collected appears to be honor-related, it is said that the woman who was later murdered had made several reports but that she then withdrew them. But it is actually no longer possible, because it is a public prosecution. If a report is made, it must be processed. It is also about responding to the victim in such a way that the victim hopefully continues to provide information. One should, however, not stop there but try to find other evidence and constantly, regardless of whether the report is withdrawn, continue as long as the underlying material makes one suspicious. For example, the aforementioned woman had several physical injuries.

I will also touch upon the fact that there are measures in the justice system that are not always compatible with one another. A restraining order covers a certain area, and it gives the person covered by the prohibition an indication of where the person who is to be protected from threats and violence is located. This is impossible to combine with other measures, for example, protected personal data with protected population registration, because one has already pointed out where the woman is now located. Confidentiality markings do not work well either.

The ultimate protection, fabricated personal data, means that the victim must erase their entire previous life and their contacts to avoid contact with a single person. It is very important here to continue to discuss what possibilities we have to act based on the Gender Equality Authority's proposal that it is instead the perpetrator's life that should be restricted. If this, the Centre Party has a reservation.

My speaking time is over, so I will stop there.

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

Torsten Elofsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Gudrun Nordborg, for the speech! It was, as usual, passionate.

I have a reflection. I believe we both agree that cases concerning men's violence against women are quite complicated.

I was sitting and reading my newspaper this morning before I headed here to the Riksdag. There it was about a female police officer who worked with crimes in close relationships and who suddenly became a victim. She had a relationship. She had children. The man became more controlling. It all spiraled out of control, and eventually, it became physical abuse. She filed a report and received protected housing and so on.

In the investigation, it was assumed that she, as a victim of a crime in a close relationship, was competent to judge matters for herself. What happened then? Well, the prosecutor dismissed the case. The crime could not be proven. There were no injuries, only her word. There were no witnesses. This meant that the man was regarded as innocent.

How long should a restraining order last? What should it be based on? We must have a rule of law that ensures the man is also regarded as a legal person in the sense that he has the right to have his case examined. But these are complicated matters. We talk a lot about perpetrators and so on. A perpetrator is someone who has been convicted of a crime, but many times it concerns suspicion of a crime that then does not result in anything because it often occurs in closed rooms. There are no witnesses, there are no injuries, and it has often been ongoing for a long time.

My question to Gudrun Nordborg is: What do we do with that type of matter?

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

Gudrun Nordborg (V)

Madam Speaker! I thank the member for the questions.

I want to start with the conclusion, what we do if there is only a suspicion. Then we shall continue and see if it can be substantiated. That often happens. There may be text messages, there may be letters, and there may be things that we are not directly looking for. It can be the case that the person who has been subjected to it has told neighbors, friends, and others. There may be traces in healthcare and so on.

I think it is important that this is raised in the bill. Also, when there are threatening situations and repeated persecutions, one should be able to act. I believe we can go further there, and I think that is an important part. There does not have to be a conviction, which people are far too fixated on today.

Regarding the example of a female police officer, I know many female police officers. It spans over years, so it is not just right now. They have been rejected in the justice system, which has said: You are a police officer and should be able to defend yourself. We do not believe you. You could handle such a situation. This is not valid.

There are situations where it is a female police officer who is married to a male police officer. Then it becomes even harder. I remember the first time the justice system managed to convict a male police officer for aggravated assault against a woman, which is what it was about that time. It is about prejudices and boundaries that we must break. We shall deal with these prejudices as much as we can. A police officer can be violent in an incorrect way.

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

Torsten Elofsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! That is absolutely true. I know several police officers who have been convicted of assault of both men and women. Police officers are not saints. There are inaccuracies there as well.

In this case, I want to point out the complexity of the whole situation. A professional police officer who is also accustomed to investigating crimes in close relationships is now a crime victim. Reasonably, she should be able to point out circumstances that lead to evidence or confirm the man's dangerousness. Despite these conditions, it fails.

I do not defend any perpetrators, but I want to point out the complexity in the cases. Gudrun Nordborg is also a lawyer at heart. As a prosecutor, one cannot rely entirely on one statement; one must also listen to the other statement. Often they contradict each other.

In this exchange, I really just want to point out that these are not simple matters.

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

Gudrun Nordborg (V)

Madam Speaker! With violence competence, it will at least be easier to see patterns and follow up. When it comes to this case, the responsibility is placed on the victim. Even though she was a female police officer, it is the wrong attitude that she is the one who should deliver everything. People must help each other and see if she can tell more. Are there additional things that could be followed up on which lead to a safer situation? Perhaps at least protection can be provided with a restraining order. But it is not certain that such dialogues lead to obtaining grounds for prosecution and a conviction.

It doesn't have to be like this. We cannot have such sharp requirements. Then we haven't achieved anything with the reforms that have taken place so far and which it has taken decades to move forward. We are absolutely not finished there yet. I think we are hopefully alone in that. Prejudices must not continue to rule.

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

Torsten Elofsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! As has become clearly evident here in the chamber today, it can be said that violence in close relationships is a major societal problem. It can involve many criminal classifications, for example, assault, unlawful threats, rape and sexual assault. It occurs throughout society regardless of social class, gender, ethnicity, cultural or religious background, disability, age or sexual orientation. The majority consists of men's violence against women, and as mentioned here today, a number of women are killed every year by men with whom they have or have had a relationship.

To exercise violence is always a crime, and there are several laws against this type of repeated violence. An unhealthy and destructive relationship, where violence can come to develop, can begin with that which was initially infatuation, courtship, and positive interest transitioning into control and jealousy.

This, in turn, usually leads to the victim being isolated and perhaps not being allowed to meet friends alone, and the partner questions socializing and leisure activities. The victim may have to prove their love by following the partner's rules. It is often said that the victim's room for maneuver is drastically reduced. These are serious warning signs. In a healthy relationship, control never occurs.

Madam Speaker! The efforts and measures against violence in close relationships have progressively improved, but there is still much to be done. Not least, the police's reporting of Operation Beta shows that there is a need for improvements.

Historically, domestic assault was a crime of reporting. If the woman did not want to report it, nothing happened. This has, for the most part, changed. We have received a changed view on crimes in close relationships which has given us new legislation in the form of peace laws regarding both women's peace and children's peace. The current law on restraining orders, which we are debating here today, was introduced in 1988. Police and prosecutors have – believe it or not – developed new working methods, but there is still much to be done, not least regarding the restraining order.

A restraining order is an important protective measure primarily for women and children who are exposed to violence and other violations in close relationships. The current legislation has been applied restrictively. The prosecutor's decision has often been based on grounds that required the perpetrator of violence who created fear and insecurity to have a previous conviction regarding similar crime.

Now we are tightening the legislation and providing increased opportunities to issue restraining orders and strengthen the protection for the vulnerable.

Previous known criminality obviously still has significance, but now we also weigh in other factors that carry greater significance. Improper surveillance is such an infringement that is introduced as a new basis for a restraining order.

Madam Speaker! It is also new that we are reviewing the geographical boundaries of the restraining order. Extended and specially extended restraining orders shall be able to cover larger geographical areas. Freedom of movement shall be restricted for the perpetrator and not for the person who is subjected to violence, threats, and harassment – even in cases where the perpetrator does not go all the way, which was highlighted by previous speakers.

We are also strengthening the security of tenure so that we hopefully get better conditions to give the threatened person the opportunity to remain in the residence while the person the restraining order concerns is moved away.

In some cases, a particularly extended restraining order will also be combined with conditions for electronic surveillance if there are no special reasons against it. It will become more common with electronic tags and easier to monitor the perpetrators or offenders.

There will also be increased penalties for those who violate the restraining order. The most flagrant violations can result in up to two years of imprisonment. Violations in other cases can result in up to one year of imprisonment and, in minor cases, a fine.

Parallel to the expanded protection, police and prosecutors have developed new working methodologies with an increased focus on the perpetrators. Indications of threats and risks are now documented continuously, and measures are taken to prevent and preclude crime. Part of this is also the ambition to expand the cooperation between the police and other authorities where secrecy previously constituted a hurdle.

As I mentioned in a previous exchange, there is an investigation regarding increased information exchange between authorities. A new general secrecy-breaking provision is proposed there, which aims to enable efficient information exchange.

As we were discussing earlier, it is not actually only the police and prosecutors who are to work with this, but the entire society must engage in different ways. It is important that authorities, healthcare, social services, and others who come into contact with women and children who are subjected to this type of threat also indicate it. I am fully open to the police forwarding information, to the extent that one has any, to other authorities. The problem, at least according to the police commissioner, has been that the police arrive a bit too late. There are authorities and individuals who have had the information, but it has not been forwarded in time. That means the woman runs a great risk of being subjected to crime. A small plea to others: Let us all help each other to get this right!

Madam Speaker! Alongside the police operations against serious violent crime linked to gang crime and organized crime, operations against crimes in close relationships are the government's highest priority.

With this, I move for approval of the proposal in the report and rejection of all motions.

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

Martin Melin (L)

Madam Speaker! To talk about threats and understand threats, or to understand what it means to be threatened, is difficult. It is not about physical violence. It is more about experiences and feelings, and describing experiences and feelings is quite difficult.

Physical violence is more easily understood: He hit me. He cut me. He jumped on my head. He shot me in the shoulder. It is easier to describe and explain, because we have all at some point hit ourselves and understand what pain is. But how do you describe fear? How do you describe dread?

How do you describe the feeling of not being able to sleep because you do not know if someone will burst through the door and harm you in your home? How does it feel to start your car and not know if it will be blown up? How does it feel to sit on the sofa and not know if someone will shoot through the window – or shoot through the window in the room next door, where your child is lying and sleeping?

How does it feel to feel anxiety in your body every time it rings or every time you receive a text message? That is where the threats come, and the threats describe exactly what is to be done to you – how you are to be raped, shot, cut into pieces. The veiled threats tell where your children go to preschool or school or in which football team your daughter plays. You get a description of what clothes you were wearing when you went to work this morning.

How does it feel to constantly have to be on your guard when you sit on the bus and constantly look out for who or whom who boards? You become nervous every time you get looks, when you hear sounds or when someone bumps into you.

How does it feel not to dare to go and shop in the grocery store because you are afraid of running into that person, the one who wants to harm you?

Imagine having it like this, day after day after day! It is not easy for any of us to understand what it feels like to live with a threat.

Madam Speaker! Today we are debating here how we can increase the protection for those who are threatened. My question then is: Are there any limitations in the law regarding how much we can protect those who are threatened? Should the law not simply say that we shall do everything within our power? Should the person who is threatened not feel that society stands 100 percent on his or her side?

The one who chooses to threaten is the loser, and by loser I mean that the person should lose very many rights. They should actually disappear from that person. Instead, it should be more about obligations and restrictions.

The most effective way to stop someone who threatens is, of course, to lock that person up. Then it is solved. Lock up the person until they either can no longer carry out the threat or until the threat has disappeared! But that would probably mean that certain people would have to sit locked up for the rest of their lives, and our legislation does not work that way. Therefore, we see today how threats that, at best, result in a few months of imprisonment are actually carried out.

Remember that all murders of women have been preceded by a threat! Therefore, we must take those threats seriously.

Madam Speaker! There is much to be done when it comes to combating threats, and I am not just talking about threats within the family but also about threats against witnesses and victims.

One thing that is used today to protect those who are threatened is a restraining order – something that, if you ask me, does not function completely satisfactorily as it is today. But, as I said before, the alternative to that is to lock up those who threaten. Then the protection would be one hundred percent, but that is perhaps not such a society we want to have. Furthermore, it would become unsustainable, because in that case very many people would be locked up. And, in the name of honesty, there are different levels even in the threats. I will come back to that a bit later.

The government is now presenting a proposal on how the law on contact prohibitions can be improved. It is proposed, among other things, that the protection for those threatened in connection with a legal process, i.e., witnesses and the victim, shall be strengthened. It shall be possible to testify digitally to a much greater extent. Contact prohibitions shall also be able to be used to a greater extent than today. That is good. No one should be intimidated into silence just because they have been subjected to a crime or are testifying about a crime.

The government also wants to see that restraining orders for those who threaten are implemented at an earlier stage than today. Restraining orders should be used more preventatively than today. That is good, because as I said before: All murders of women have been preceded by a threat. We must take those threats seriously.

It is important that we take actions earlier than today. I cannot say it enough, so I say it again: We must take all threats against women seriously. And by "we," I mean everyone – politicians, authorities, civil servants – everyone.

Today, the law says that a person who threatens can be granted an extended restraining order. But first, if the person violates the extended restraining order, it can become relevant to issue a special extended restraining order, which then covers a larger geographical area that the person is not allowed to stay in and an ankle bracelet that can tell the police in real time when, how, and where the person violates the prohibition.

Now it is desired that it should be possible to decide on this particularly extended restraining order at an earlier stage, i.e., without there having been a prior violation of an extended restraining order. That is good.

What is almost even more important than what happens to the person who violates the restraining order is how society reacts. If society only reacts with an "oh well, don't do that again" instead of the person actually shaking bars for a couple of years, we will never prevent the threats that escalate from threats to violence – and perhaps even to deadly violence.

Restraining order – an extended protection for deported persons

It is therefore pleasing that the government proposes that the penalty for violation of an extended restraining order be increased from one year's imprisonment to two years' imprisonment. If you ask me, it could have been doubled, but this is a good start.

Madam Speaker! I finally want to say that the entire justice chain – from legislators to police, prosecutors and courts – must be on board. We must show that we are taking the threats and violence against women, witnesses and victims seriously. The proposals that the government is now putting forward are a step in the right direction.

Contact prohibition – an extended protection for expelled persons

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(A decision was to be taken on 20 May.)

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