National strategy against violent extremism and terrorism - prevent, deter, protect and respond

Adam Marttinen (SD)

Mr. Speaker! We are debating the Committee on Justice's report National strategy against violence-promoting extremism and terrorism - prevent, deter, protect and manage.

It is a new, unified strategy against violence-promoting extremism and terrorism that encompasses the work of authorities and various social actors and which provides a situational overview and points to political initiatives and various objectives.

From the report to be judged, there are no major political differences between the government and the opposition. There are, however, two reservations from Miljöpartiet, one of which the Socialdemokraterna have joined, and a special statement from Vänsterpartiet.

National strategy against violent extremism and terrorism - prevent, deter, protect and respond

The Social Democrats and the Green Party argue, among other things, that they lack "a more detailed reasoning on the structural root causes of violence-promoting extremism and terrorism as well as proposals for measures to combat these." They point to segregation and exclusion as potential root causes and want to include these root causes in order to be able to combat the extremists' growth environments and recruitment base – very good.

Miljöpartiet also has a desire for a new cross-bloc agreement and points to the agreement that took place between the previous government and the opposition at that time, which at that time excluded the Sverigedemokraterna. One does not quite get wise as to exactly what type of agreement they are asking for, but it seems to be according to the recipe: the more cooks, the better the soup.

I do not agree with that analysis for several reasons. I also do not agree that there is any greater need for further analysis of the root causes of why we have a growth environment among extremists and terrorists in our country, something that the Social Democrats and the Green Party point out and want.

I think that analysis is quite crystal clear, and it is also described in documents outside of just this report, including in the Security Service's annual reports through the years.

Vänsterpartiet has a separate statement regarding this report, in which they describe that they have a differing opinion from the government when it comes to, for example, increased use of secret coercive measures, more opportunities for authorities to share information, and further measures to prevent the spread of terrorist content on digital platforms.

One is therefore against the type of measures that have given the Security Service a more effective scope of action to combat terrorism. If we had accepted the Left Party's line over the years and let them decide, we can therefore say on good grounds that the Security Service, in those cases where they have succeeded in stopping terrorist attacks in our country through their intelligence gathering, would not have been able to do so. Sweden would, with the Left Party's policy, likely have experienced more terrorist attacks.

The collective criticism from Vänsterpartiet, Miljöpartiet, and Socialdemokraterna is therefore that they want to see a greater gathering around the pot. They want a closer analysis, but I mean that it is already clear.

In summary, Mr. Speaker, it can be said that Vänsterpartiet is against effective measures in the fight against terrorism. Miljöpartiet wants to let foreign terror threats into our country completely without control, and Socialdemokraterna want to build their government base on these two parties.

It is like this: The greatest threat is Islamism. The primary cause of it is immigration. The best solution to prevent this situation in the future is deportation.

As long as we cannot agree on the problem description and the objective for the policy, there is no need to include the Socialdemokraterna or Miljöpartiet in the joint work moving forward against terrorism.

Mr. Speaker! I move for the motions to be rejected and for the letter to be added to the records.

(Applause)

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

Anna Wallentheim (S)

Mr. Speaker! Terrorism and violent extremism continue to be an imminent threat to our country and our way of life. Already in previous debates, we here in the chamber have had the opportunity to highlight the fact that Sweden has moved from being regarded as a legitimate target for terrorist attacks to being regarded as a prioritized target.

In a time when the divides in Sweden are increasing, when exclusion is growing and when hope for the future has been replaced by pessimism, decisive action is required to increase Swedish security. In our committee motion, we Social Democrats highlighted that an updated national effort against violent extremism and terrorism was needed, and here we stand now in the chamber to debate the government's communication National strategy against violent extremism and terrorism - prevent, deter, protect and respond.

The threat from violent extremism and terrorism has in recent years transformed into an increasingly complex and difficult-to-combat challenge: from violent right-wing extremism to violent Islamism to individual acts of terrorism that are difficult to predict. These have also found their way into new arenas.

In light of this, we must see how the digital era has brought about a diversity of platforms where violence-promoting messages and terrorist content can be spread frighteningly easily. This development has meant that the threats no longer recognize any borders. They are now transboundary in their nature and constitute a threat not only to a nation but to democracy as a whole.

This means that we can no longer only speak of extremism and terrorism in the classical sense. We are now facing a broader threat consisting of activities aimed at undermining democratic society and eroding trust in our institutions. This requires a strategy that is as complex as the problem itself.

Mr. Speaker! During our years in government, we Social Democrats submitted 28 propositions with legislative proposals that pointed exactly at these areas. We have always taken terrorist and extremist issues very seriously, which means that, among other things, we developed a strategy regarding terrorism and a strategy regarding violent extremism. We also developed a new terror crime law, a ban on terror travel, new tools for the Security Service, and so on, all to make a difference.

The acts of violence in recent years also make the questions linked to violent extremism even more threatening. We must therefore also see the symbiosis between terrorism and violent extremism. This is why we Social Democrats largely welcome the new unified national strategy that replaces the two previous strategies Prevent, Prevent and Obstruct - the Swedish strategy against terrorism, and the strategy Measures to make society more resilient against violent extremism. That we now receive a unified strategy, we see as something positive.

Mr. Speaker! We cannot deny that Sweden's security situation has undergone a significant change, unfortunately not for the better. Terrorism and violent extremism have become a frightening reality that constantly reminds us of the insecurity we live in, from the horrific events in Stockholm in 2017 to deadly school attacks, from Visby in 2022 to the attack against Swedish citizens in Brussels in 2023.

These are some examples of how our country has been hit by attacks that have shaken us and made these issues even more complex. These threats do not only pose a danger to our personal freedom and security but, as I said, undermine democracy as a whole.

From the government's strategy, it can be read, among other things, that today we face three main parallel threats to our internal security. It is terrorism and violence-promoting extremism. It is different state actors acting hostiley towards Sweden. And it is serious, organized crime.

In a time when the threats are many and extensive, it is crucial that our response is persistent and well-planned. We Social Democrats therefore welcome large parts of the strategy that the government has presented, which builds upon the work that we Social Democrats did during our years in government. We believe that the strategy will become an important tool to continue combating extremism and terrorism. By focusing on preventing, deterring, protecting, and managing threats both before and after an attack, we show that we are firmly determined to protect our society and the principles it is built on.

We must also be clear that this strategy is not the entire solution. But it will become an important tool that can guide authorities, institutions, and politicians in our shared responsibility towards complex threats.

We Social Democrats recognize that a long-term commitment and a collective effort from the entire society is required to effectively combat the challenges. With Social Democratic values as a starting point, where we, as with other crime, mean that we must do both, I am firmly convinced that together we can create a society that is safer, more inclusive, and fairer for everyone.

Mr. Speaker! As I said, we are generally positive about the government's communication, but there are certain parts where we wish that the focus had been clearer and that concrete measures had been presented. One example is the need for more interventions against the financing of terrorism. The regulation regarding the Swedish Police Authority's and the Security Service's cooperation with other authorities and private actors is a step in the right direction, but clearer guidance and measures are needed to effectively combat the financing of terrorism. Financing from, for example, welfare crime is something we Social Democrats will never accept.

We also mean that a more detailed reasoning regarding the structural root causes of violence-promoting extremism and terrorism is needed. It is important that the strategy does not only focus on combating the symptoms but also addresses the root of the problem. Measures to reduce segregation and exclusion and improve social justice are crucial to prevent extremism environments from gaining a foothold and being able to recruit new members.

The strategy should place greater emphasis on early interventions to prevent radicalization and recruitment, especially among children and young people. It is about identifying risk groups in school and providing social services and healthcare with the right conditions. The digital environment must function in such a way that we catch the children and young people who are drifting away. It can also be about support for parents or civil society organizations, which play an incredibly important role in this work.

Mr. Speaker! By addressing these deficiencies and supplementing the strategy with concrete measures, we can ensure that we work effectively against violent extremism and terrorism on all fronts. The serious and grave crime of recent years undermines trust between people and erodes faith in the future. So it must not continue. Society must be stronger than that. When a young person risks being drawn into crime or extremism, the entire society must intervene with all available means at its disposal. We Social Democrats believe that the entire society should be mobilized to break segregation, exclusion, and the increasing gaps.

The best way to counter racism, Islamism, and extremism is to strengthen equality and ensure that we have a functioning welfare state that reaches everyone. To succeed in this, first and foremost, more adults must enter the workforce. We must also break down overcrowding and economic inequality, but it is also about ensuring that teachers, field assistants, sports clubs, cultural associations, and others have the support they need to give children and young people faith in the future and the courage to dream.

With those words I conclude my speech and move for approval of reservation number 2.

(Applause)

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

Adam Marttinen (SD)

Mr. Speaker! The Sweden Democrats and the Social Democrats have had several debates over the years on the theme of terrorism. We have also seen the development in our country when it comes to the violent environments. Violent Islamism has, as is known, been regarded by the Swedish Security Service as the largest and fastest-growing since earlier. So it has been during a 10-15-year period.

The Social Democrats say in a reservation, together with the Green Party, that there is a lack of a more detailed reasoning regarding the structural root causes of violent extremism. I would like to ask a question to the Social Democrats and Anna Wallentheim. Can they today admit – it has been difficult for them so far – that the immigration policy for which the Social Democrats have primarily been responsible in their governments has been a contributing and root cause of why violent Islamism has been able to grow strong in our country?

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

Anna Wallentheim (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Member, for the question! Just as Adam Marttinen mentions, we have stood in this chamber many times and had different types of debates on issues of terrorism and extremism. It is also not the first time that I and the Member are given the opportunity to stand in a reply exchange and discuss what type of extremism we consider to be the root cause of the problems we see in society.

I want to point out once again that we Social Democrats see this as a positive strategy that should work on all fronts. There is a problem with the right-wing extremism. There is a problem with Islamism. There are also lone actors who are difficult to place in a category. We must work on all fronts, and I have pointed out that it is precisely the root causes we must look at.

I, unlike Member Marttinen, do not believe that it is the increased immigration that is the problem. The problem is that we have a society that is being torn apart because we choose to prioritize completely incorrectly. The Sweden Democrats are now cooperating with a government that actually continues to widen the gaps and which continues to ensure that children are treated differently depending on where in Sweden they live. You are participating in financing the type of development that means that not all schools and children receive the right conditions. You continue to prioritize the wealthiest in society instead of investing in the welfare.

At its core, this is about directing resources to preschools, breaking down segregation, and ensuring that people enter our society. What is it that makes the Sweden Democrats not see that development?

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

Adam Marttinen (SD)

Mr. Speaker! The fundamental reason why we moved to reject the Green Party's reservation on cross-border cooperation is that cooperation is completely meaningless if a party refuses to understand the structural root causes of a certain type of problem, which is nevertheless clear and well-described.

It is stated in the Security Service's annual reports that immigration has contributed to the spread of violent Islamism in our country. But for a Social Democrat, it is a long way to admit that one has been responsible for that growth through its tenure in government. For that reason, I want to assert that there is no basis for both reservations. There are good descriptions of the growth of the various environments and the reasons for it, and there is also a clear connection—unfortunately, one might say—to the Social Democrats' tenure in government.

Finally, there is no need for any cooperation or cross-bloc agreement with the remaining parties in the chamber. It would be completely meaningless and counterproductive to hold talks with parties that want to make it harder for the Swedish Security Service to combat terrorism and with parties that deny the connection to the state of affairs.

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

Anna Wallentheim (S)

Mr. Speaker! Once again, the root causes are being raised, and we have completely different views on that.

One can read reports. I do not intend to swear, Mr. Speaker, but the reports I read I wish the Sweden Democrats could see with the same eyes as we Social Democrats and many other parties in this chamber. We see what these reports point to is what causes people to end up in crime, in criminality, and that people are drawn to extremism - it is increased segregation and exclusion.

There are no reports pointing to a certain person with a certain religion or a certain skin color. The reports point to people who do not succeed in entering our society, people who do not succeed in school, people who do not get jobs, people who do not succeed in breaking the overcrowding. There we have the root causes of why crime is increasing.

It is as always obvious in this chamber that the Sweden Democrats only have one view on criminals - that they are people who do not look like Adam Marttinen. I think that is an incredibly big problem, and I want to highlight it.

If instead you could choose to look at the fact that we must break down exclusion and segregation, we would much more easily be able to find the cross-bloc collaborations that are actually required to break extremism and terrorism as we see it and which this strategy is about - a strategy that both Adam Marttinen and I mentioned here in the chamber that we basically stand behind. It is important that we see that we shall both prevent and preclude, manage and so on. We do stand behind this. But the root causes we apparently will not agree on.

I wish that in the future and in upcoming debates we can find a more common line where we see how we are to break segregation and exclusion in order to ensure that we break the development we see.

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

Mikael Damsgaard (M)

Mr. Speaker! Sweden's security situation has changed and deteriorated over a longer period of time.

Today we face three parallel main threats to our internal security: terrorism and violent extremism, different state actors acting hostiley towards Sweden and serious organized crime.

In August, the Swedish Security Service raised the terror threat level from a three to a four on a five-point scale, from an elevated threat to a high threat. The background was the significantly deteriorated security situation and the assessment that the threat will persist for a longer period.

Terrorism has in modern times been carried out with many different purposes and with different approaches - everything from plane hijackings to lone individuals who kill civilians indiscriminately with firearms or vehicles.

During the 1970s and 80s, for example, separatist groups such as the IRA in the United Kingdom and Eta in Spain were responsible for a large number of attacks. In more recent times, a large number of attacks have been carried out both in Europe and globally by individuals or groups with links to violent Islamism. We have also experienced a number of serious attacks committed with motives linked to violent far-right extremism.

Common to all forms of terrorism is the systematic and ruthless use of violence and destruction in order to thereby instill fear and attempt to force political changes. The violence often hits people randomly because they happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Mr. Speaker! Sweden shall be characterized by openness, good values, democracy and respect for fundamental human freedoms and rights. People shall be able to move safely and freely, participate in gatherings and express their opinions without fear of being subjected to threats or violence. The work against terrorism is therefore central to protecting our way of life in a free, democratic society.

Swedish legislation against terrorism was long overdue, which we Moderates have criticized for many years. In recent years, however, important steps have been taken.

After many years of waiting, the new terrorist crime law entered into force in 2022. At the same time, the new law on special control of certain foreigners entered into force, which increased the possibility of holding persons who pose a threat to Sweden's security in detention and under supervision.

We Moderates welcomed the new laws but simultaneously noted that several problems remained unresolved, such as the fact that the sentencing scales for several crimes were too mild.

Just under a year ago, participation in a terrorist organization was also criminalized. This means that Sweden has extensive legislation regarding terrorist crime, but the work to further strengthen the protection continues.

The threat of terrorism varies as said over time in terms of both actors and intensity, but it has been constantly present in Sweden and our surrounding world during the last decades. Many other countries have lived with high levels of terror threats for a long time, but there society as a whole has been able to continue functioning as usual. We in Sweden must also manage this while the work to combat the threat of terrorism continues with undiminished force.

Mr. Speaker! The work of protecting society against violence-promoting extremism and terrorism must therefore be persistent, long-term, and strategic. Having goals and directions in a national strategy has been a success factor in that work.

The first national strategy against terrorism was developed as early as 2008. It has since been renewed in 2012 and 2015. But since then, the threat from violent extremism and terrorism has become increasingly complex and difficult to combat. There is now a broader threat against Sweden that aims to erode trust in society and its institutions and, in the long run, weaken our democracy.

In connection with Folk och Försvar in Sälen earlier this year, the government therefore presented a new strategy against violent extremism and terrorism. It is that document from the government that we are now debating.

The work is not finished just because the government has adopted a strategy. The work against violent extremism and terrorism is rather gaining further momentum.

The Government has tasked the Center against violent extremism at Brå, the Swedish Civil Contingencies Agency, the Swedish Police Authority, and the Swedish Security Service to take measures to incorporate the strategy into their operations. The Government has also tasked the Center against violent extremism to develop coordination between the national, regional, and local levels.

It may also be worth noting that the document we are now debating is precisely a strategy and, as such, must be sufficiently comprehensive and concrete to provide a clear direction for Sweden's collective work against violent extremism and terrorism. But space must also be left for the government and the responsible authorities to be able to concretize and further develop the work in different contexts.

The work shall be based on four strategic areas: to prevent violence-promoting extremism and terrorism, to prevent terrorist attacks and other ideologically motivated crimes, to protect society's people and functions, and finally to manage the situation during and after an attack.

The preventive work against violent extremism and terrorism needs to be integrated into the general crime prevention work, where a number of actors are responsible for developing interventions at national, regional, and local levels. The municipalities, through their crime prevention responsibility and with the activities they conduct close to the citizens, have an important role in this work.

It is about schools, social services, and the police strengthening their cooperation and expanding early interventions to reduce radicalization and recruitment of children into extremist environments. To create the conditions for this, national authorities need to provide better support to local professionals in the form of information on situational pictures and knowledge and guidance on interventions in preventive work. The Police Authority, the Prison and Probation Service, the State Board of Institutions, and the National Board of Health and Welfare shall develop and quality-assure support and guidance for interventions for defectors from extremist environments.

In recent years, several reports have emerged regarding how public funds are distributed to activities with links to violent extremism or other anti-democratic environments through, for example, study associations, associations, or companies. This is something that must not occur in Sweden. Work is therefore ongoing to strengthen control functions in order to be able to stop these types of payments. The Government also intends to appoint an inquiry on a ban on foreign funding of religious communities and other organizations with links to Islamism and extremism.

The work to prevent terrorist attacks and other ideologically motivated crimes is about strengthening the work to stop the financing of terrorism, reducing access to weapons, and being able to more quickly detect persons who pose a security threat in order to prevent attacks.

The Council and the Parliament have recently agreed on a new legislative package at the EU level against money laundering and terrorist financing. There is also an ongoing investigation on this in Sweden which will soon be submitted to the government. The government has also taken measures to tighten the regulatory framework around exchange offices and make exchange offices and money transfers subject to licensing, which in practice will prohibit the hawala system that is extensively used for the criminal networks' money flows but also for financing of terrorism.

We see how criminals can have roots in both serious organized crime and violent extremism. It is particularly dangerous given the large availability of weapons in the criminal environment. The moderate-led government's work to push back serious organized crime is therefore of great importance for combating violent extremism and terrorism.

A central part of the work to prevent attacks is to detect persons who constitute a security threat to Sweden. This concerns both persons who are already in Sweden and preventing persons who constitute a security threat from entering Sweden.

The work to protect society's functions against violence-oriented extremism and terrorism aims to reduce vulnerability in society, among other things through various security-enhancing measures.

Finally, the strategy also addresses how society should handle the situation during and after an attack. Even though the ambition of this strategy is to prevent, deter, and protect society against attacks, it is also necessary that there is a preparedness to handle completed acts of terrorism.

Preparedness only exists if those who are expected to act have also practiced different scenarios. It is therefore of crucial importance that personnel from the rescue services, the police, and health and medical care carry out joint training and train together to improve the ability to handle that which should not happen.

The hope is that the strategy can contribute to the fact that the strength of our entire society can be mobilized - locally, regionally, nationally and internationally - to effectively combat terrorism and violent extremism.

With that, I conclude by moving for the approval of the proposal in the report.

(Applause)

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

Rasmus Ling (MP)

Mr. Speaker! This summer, the Swedish Security Service raised the so-called terror threat level from a three to a four following the publicized Quran burnings. As a result of this, the government and the Moderates' Gunnar Strömmer appointed an inquiry that shall review the Public Order Act and whether the police should be able to say no in the granting of permits, so that one does not receive police permission to burn a Quran. My question, Mr. Speaker, to Mikael Damsgaard is whether the Moderates think that such a possibility to deny permission should be introduced.

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

Mikael Damsgaard (M)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Rasmus Ling for the question. It is obvious that Sweden faces many parallel threats. There are different forms of influence campaigns that Sweden must be robust enough to withstand. We have also seen how activities have been carried out in Sweden that have aimed at nothing other than to provoke.

The Government has appointed the inquiry into the review of the Public Order Act in order to be able to clarify what possibilities may exist to prohibit or say no to events under the Public Order Act with reference to Sweden's security. The inquiry will relatively soon submit its report to the Government. I see no reason to anticipate the result of the inquiry here.

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

Rasmus Ling (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I and Miljöpartiet are completely against Quran burnings as an activity and see only negative things with them. It is completely correct as Mikael Damsgaard says - there are influence campaigns and activities that only aim to provoke. There are also those who want the same thing - to provoke - and who are high-ranking politicians in Mikael Damsgaard's government support.

Mr. Speaker! With that said, I see enormous risks in moving forward with such legislation, which would mean that the police could say no to, for example, Quran burnings but also other things that would be judged to be a threat to Sweden's security. The legislation would in itself be a restriction of freedom of speech. As I see it, it would be very risky. Furthermore, a slippery slope could occur.

I also do not believe that we would address the issues one wants to and reduce the risk of terror. I believe that this can happen in other ways, without the police's granting of permits. I believe that there are other ways to provoke high-ranking politicians, Islamist actors, and others who want to. The risk is also, Mr. Speaker, that this rather becomes a way for other states to engage in blackmail against Sweden with the aim that one should take measures to limit occurrences that take place.

Mr. Speaker! I think the Moderates and Mikael Damsgaard should not wait for this but give notice that they say no to such a proposal.

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

Mikael Damsgaard (M)

Mr. Speaker! As I said, an investigation is underway. There is reason to await the outcome of the investigation before we announce any intentions regarding how the government intends to proceed with this. The purposes of appointing the investigation were to increase knowledge about the application of the Public Order Act, to see what possibilities exist to handle different types of situations within the framework of the Public Order Act, and to create legislative preparedness for future situations that could be even worse. At some point, the investigation will be submitted to the government. After that, the government will announce in what way it will proceed with the proposals.

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

Rasmus Ling (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Combating terrorism and violent extremism in all forms is one of the state's most important tasks. Attempting to influence society through violence is both dangerous and a threat to democracy. Democracy can be threatened in different ways. When a terrorist attack occurs, the attack itself is a tragedy, but it also spreads fear throughout society. There is also a risk that closed-mindedness will increase and that openness in society will decrease. As I mentioned in the exchange just now, there is a proposal to limit freedom of speech, and that could be such an example.

Previous national strategies against terrorism have been adopted in greater consensus across the block boundaries. Now, the government has chosen not to do so. Arguments have been made previously as to why, but I still think this is regrettable, Mr. Speaker. I believe, after all, that it becomes better when more are involved in the decisions. If it turns out that one cannot agree when negotiating, that is one thing, but I think not making an attempt is wrong. The government has, however, chosen to act in that manner.

With that said, much in the strategy is good. It is absolutely not the case that everything is bad. There is much in it that has also applied previously. But there are some points, Mr. Speaker, where I think one should have been clearer and more concrete than one has been. Perhaps the most important thing I miss concerns the prison and probation service. The prison and probation service is mentioned in the strategy, but it has a less prominent place than before, when it should instead take up a larger place.

The situation in the correctional services is, as at least we in the Justice Committee but also more and more people outside see it, extremely serious. Prisons and remand centers are full. The correctional services are unable to cope with meeting the statutory requirements that exist. Sharing cells is becoming increasingly common. According to previous statements from the Minister for Justice, it will become the new normal - that which is planned for.

What preparedness exists for situations where violent extremists – Islamists, right-wing extremists, or others – share a cell with persons who have not been in this environment previously? One might share a cell for ten hours per day, day after day, week after week, month after month, perhaps for several years. The risk, Mr. Speaker, must be extremely great that in such a case, it is not the violent extremist who is influenced for the better, but rather that the person who was not previously radicalized instead becomes so.

I have previously, in an interpellation debate with the Minister for Justice, addressed this issue. The message from the government was that there are positive aspects to sharing a cell: one gets company. I think, Mr. Speaker, that it is very dangerous and naive to turn a blind eye to this risk.

Miljöpartiet calls for in our committee motion also more concrete measures, for example regarding the financing of terrorism, which are also rejected by a parliamentary majority here, which I regret.

I would like to move for approval of reservation 1.

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

Gudrun Nordborg (V)

Mr. Speaker! There is a lot going on on the Justice Committee's horizon right now. We have seven reports within a few days. Several today, another couple tomorrow, and even more on Monday. It is a high pace that comes suddenly, and one can also see that there is a risk of certain mistakes.

I would like to begin by saying that we in Vänsterpartiet want to join the motion that Miljöpartiet has formulated and which Socialdemokraterna have also stood behind. I therefore move for approval of reservation 2.

At the same time, I also want to adhere to the specific statement that Vänsterpartiet has submitted, where we are concerned about how these serious issues regarding terrorism and violent extremism are being handled.

We, of course, like other parties, view the development with great seriousness. But what distinguishes us from the government parties, including the Sweden Democrats, is how one should be able to handle this in a reasonable way. The seriousness is there, but our focus lies on preventing and managing the structural obstacles that exist so that we can tackle serious crime, including terrorism.

With that said, I also want to point out that there are several properly positive sections in this strategy document that show ambitions to handle this. I can also appreciate that I finally find words about research and proven experience in the texts, which is not so common otherwise in the products from the Government Offices nowadays.

I also think it is very important how one marks cooperation. But sometimes I can also wonder how such broad cooperation can be managed - sometimes authorities and organizations are listed that take up almost half a page of text. We must be able to build structures, but they must become conscious.

I can say thank you, but also regret the position that Centrum regarding countering violent extremism has received in order to, like the spider in the web, together with the police be able to hold together the cooperation in different ways. The ambition is wise, and we can hope that channels are developed that are reasonable for this.

I have already said that this matter of prevention is the important piece. We must also be able to withstand it when serious crimes do occur. But in the long run, we will not gain control over this if we do not manage the preventive activities.

I can see that the government also points out several areas that are dramatic and dangerous. For example, false rumors are mentioned. LVU is mentioned there, but nothing is mentioned about the Quran burnings. I do not know if this is a coincidence or if LVU is chosen as a more acceptable threat to deliver than that which is connected to the Quran burnings, where also several political representatives have stood behind the idea that the Quran burnings should be allowed to continue.

Enough of that! What is also done in these texts is to point out certain environments as extra dangerous, and that includes the prisons. I truly agree with the previous speaker that we have a breeding ground for radicalization there, especially now when double-housing is becoming increasingly common and even the new constructions will involve double-housing.

It is almost impossible to even carry out regular recidivism prevention work within the correctional services. There are no premises for education or for vocational training, and sometimes not even visiting rooms because everything must be used for residential rooms.

The risk is that this strong focus on harsh and longer sentences becomes counterproductive and that this leads to a massive boomerang effect so that we might get out more dangerous people than we put into the prisons.

An environment that also cultivates this is the gaming world. In several places in this strategy, it is pointed out that we must be able to handle it in a different way. Here, there is research to build on. Sometimes one in ten people who are in the gaming world among the younger age categories - people between 12 and 20 years old have been investigated - have received pushes, attempts at recruitment, from anti-democratic movements.

Research programs have shown this, and Expo also highlights it in a report that they have given the striking title Fulspel. We would need web police there, but it is also about us having to equip ourselves within the justice system to be able to understand and handle these processes.

These are the two specific areas of concern highlighted in the strategy. What is seen as positive, and where I believe we truly share the same view, is that a safe and secure school could mean a lot for fulfilling our democratic mission. The earlier one begins with preventive activities in school, the more could be achieved.

Reports have come out quite recently about successful projects even earlier than that, in collaboration with health and medical care, for example Backa barnet, which is particularly established in Ystad, the Kronobarnsmodellen in Kronoberg County, for example in Växjö, where childcare intervenes early with similar broad projects and then the children follow. There, they have succeeded in halving the handling of children. There are fine examples of how it can succeed if strong investments are made.

What also makes us in Vänsterpartiet appreciate the reservation submitted by MP and the Social Democrats, which we move to approve, is that we also see the other structural factors. There, SD must be alone in saying that it is immigration and Islamism that are the only evil in our society.

There are structural situations where individual persons, especially if they are young or even children, have very difficulty defending themselves against temptations that can come from strongly destructive forces.

Of course, there are civil society organizations that can become very important, such as the Helpline, which is run by Rädda Barnen, Exit, which is run by Fryshuset, and so on. Something that one would also like to mention broadly there are the defector activities. From the Vänsterpartiet side, we have previously, time and again, pointed out that we believe it must lead to a national coordination. As it is now, the responsibility lies primarily with the municipalities and social services, where they do not always have the capacity to handle it well.

All too often, contracts are also procured from private companies. It is not reasonable that we should set a minimum price for the one who is to manage such a serious and extremely important operation. There are, however, non-profit organizations that also have rehabilitation activities with good results but who do not always get the assignments because they charge more in compensation as they have more serious interventions.

In conclusion, I want to mention a structural factor that I believe everyone is aware of but that we almost never mention – the elephant in the room: It is something with masculinity and masculinity's destructive connections to violence.

Here, Center against violence-promoting extremism has contributed to knowledge documentation produced by researchers showing that masculinity - popularly we would say macho culture - is a strong element and a driving force in the environments we are talking about. There, masculinity is linked to violence and strengthened by it, while at the same time there is a powerful contempt for women.

It is also pointed out that it has links to domestic violence and men's violence against women and children. There, we again have research showing that children who experience violence in the home risk doing so also when they enter adulthood, in their relationships or in relation to other men. It also fuels organized crime and terrorism.

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

Mikael Damsgaard (M)

Mr. Speaker! It is well known that Vänsterpartiet has a history of saying no to almost all measures against terrorism that we decide on here in the Swedish Riksdag, but I did not intend to dwell on that question.

However, it is interesting how the Left Party, which is part of the Social Democrats' intended government base, views the correctional services. It is well known that the situation within the correctional services is strained. This is a consequence of an accelerating serious crime in combination with the fact that the expansion of the correctional services started far too late.

My question to Member of Parliament Nordborg is: How many inmates from the prisons does the Left Party want to be released to alleviate the pressure in the correctional services?

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

Gudrun Nordborg (V)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Mikael Damsgaard, for a very interesting question! I cannot state a number, but there are different categories of inmates. Some could be released on parole with stronger controls than what exists today.

Electronic monitoring can be used in more cases, which is a discussion that the Prison and Probation Service itself desires. The limit for when inmates may serve their sentence with an electronic tag could be raised under certain conditions. There are quite a few requirements linked to this. One must have a residence and some form of employment and be able to accept the rather tough restrictions that apply. It is therefore not so much easier, but the inmates do not, in any case, end up in an environment that might cultivate new identities and lure them into organized crime or terrorism.

Then I want to say that when Vänsterpartiet says no to the harsh reforms that the government has delivered lately, it is because we are marking the need for stronger legal certainty. Also there, it is about protecting our democratic values, which we want to live on.

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

Mikael Damsgaard (M)

Mr. Speaker! I am not unfamiliar with the idea that electronic monitoring can be used to a greater extent, but one still needs to be realistic. Given that very high requirements are set, even if the threshold were to be raised, it concerns relatively few individuals in total. It would not mean any significant reduction of the capacity shortage within the correctional services. To truly ease the pressure there, it is required that the Left Party releases prisoners, and that is, of course, not what we want.

My second question concerns how Vänsterpartiet views the significance of immigration. I am absolutely of the opinion that immigration really does not explain everything. There are many other grounds for explanation, but the segregation that has arisen due to a long-term high immigration is nevertheless decisive for the concerns we have with crime but also linked to violent extremism and the threat of terrorism.

Vänsterpartiet also says no to a number of proposals in the area of immigration policy, where we make tightenings. My question is: As part of the Social Democratic government base, how much immigration does Vänsterpartiet consider Sweden to be able to handle?

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

Gudrun Nordborg (V)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you for further questions, Mikael Damsgaard!

When it comes to what you say about releasing prisoners, it is about how one designs the system from the beginning. I am not sure that everyone within the correctional services would be better off by serving ten years rather than serving six years, for example. But that is actually a separate debate.

When it comes to immigration, I think we make huge mistakes when we blame everything on those who come as immigrants. I mean that we also make big mistakes in our society regarding how we receive immigrants and how we create opportunities for education and integration into work. There are now many projects that I could describe further which concern those who, due to flaws in the systems, have stood outside the labor market for a long time. With language training and integration into work, they also get permanent, regular jobs.

I could turn the question around and say: How will Sweden manage without immigrant labor? How will we manage the health and medical care? How will we manage the industrial expansion in northern Sweden, where I live? There, they are crying out for labor; they go abroad and try to get people to come here. There are, so to speak, imbalances in the social system, and we are not making good use of the people who are already here. We could also let more people immigrate here and everyone would be well off.

I would also like to say that the discussions we have here, where immigrants in general and practicing Muslims in particular are pointed out as scapegoats, are contributing to a very prejudiced and in that way dangerous society.

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

Torsten Elofsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Violence-seeking extremism and terrorism constitute one of our time's greatest threats to people's safety and, in the long run, to our democracy.

The threat of terrorism weighs heavily over many countries, and Sweden is in no way exempt. Remember the events on Drottninggatan, where Akilov mowed down innocent strollers, or the suicide bomber who triggered the explosive device by mistake and caused his own death. Also remember that we have individuals born and raised in Sweden who have joined the Islamic State and who have participated in horrific terrorist crimes in Paris and Brussels.

Remember also Lars Vilks, who was subjected to murder attempts on several occasions because he dared to draw a caricature of Muhammed and therefore had to have bodyguard protection for the remainder of his life, until he tragically died outside Markaryd.

Mr. Speaker! Sweden faces an intensified threat profile today. This is partly due to regimes in other countries acting hostiley towards Sweden, but we are also experiencing a radicalization and polarization that strengthens the threat profile. What further builds upon the threat is the close link between violence-oriented extremism and the organized crime that has taken hold in our country and which is now causing death and destruction. These are tangible and concrete threats to individuals' safety, and they also affect the business sector and the public sector.

Mr. Speaker! The Government has now presented a new strategy against violence-promoting extremism and terrorism, and it has four areas: prevent, deter, protect, and manage. All areas are of course prioritized, but primarily the focus must lie on preventing and deterring crimes with links to such criminality. Within those areas, actions are required from all actors in society. Everyone can and must contribute to the best of their ability.

In a broader perspective, good and close cooperation across national borders is required, and particularly within the framework of European cooperation in Europol and in collaboration with the member states' security services. Such cooperation is crucial for success in proactive work.

Mr. Speaker! Säpo, that is the Swedish Security Service, highlights today three groups with links to violent extremism. These are Islamism, right-wing extremism, and left-wing extremism. But there are also other forms of activism with participants who can be radicalized and where there is reason to be vigilant. A common denominator for all of these groups is that they use digital platforms and constantly adapt their messages and methods to attract and recruit, not least our young people.

Mr. Speaker! The greatest and most tangible threat today is posed by violent Islamism. The terrorist attacks of recent years have almost all been linked to Islamist groups such as IS, al-Qaeda, and al-Shabab. The threat situation against Sweden has also been intensified by events in the country that have been perceived as provocative attacks on Islam and Muslims.

External events, such as the Israel-Hamas conflict, have further widened and strengthened the threat picture, as have unfounded accusations against Sweden and Swedish social services. Quran burnings were mentioned here, and that is obviously also something that has palpably increased the risk of attacks in various ways.

To prevent and stop acts of violence and terrorism, as has been said, efforts from all good forces are required. Sweden currently has about 60 vulnerable areas, of which more than 20 are considered particularly vulnerable. The areas are characterized by high unemployment, crime, poor school results, other values, and a lack of integration. In that environment, a form of parallel society with its own norms and rules develops.

Those living in these areas, not least young people, are particularly affected and susceptible to messages from actors who want to attack and harm our society. These are actors who dislike or even hate our lifestyle and our values and who want to see a different society based on a different ideology.

Mr. Speaker! To break this, substantial increased efforts and a high presence of both police and other actors are required. School, social services, the business community, civil society, and the police must work together to identify young people who show signs of radicalization. We must track down, identify, and prevent individuals who fuel hatred. The subversive activity that occurs in particularly vulnerable areas must be stopped.

Information exchange must be improved and simplified. Persons who do not have the right to stay in our country shall be detained and deported. Permanent residence permits should be revoked if there is grounds for it, and it should also become possible to strip persons of citizenship under certain conditions. Against the background of the serious security situation, it is remarkable that there is such great opposition to the proposed reporting obligation, which has been discussed here previously. Persons who lack the right to stay in the country constitute a potential risk and shall be deported.

In summary: If we want to improve and increase safety, it is a good start if we succeed in transforming the vulnerable areas into safer and more prosperous areas. It will take time and require major efforts, but with good forces and substantial efforts from both the private and the public sectors, we can probably fix it.

With this said, I welcome the government's communication, which constitutes a good basis for the continued work for increased safety, and move for approval of the proposal in the committee report.

(Applause)

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

Martin Melin (L)

Mr. Speaker! In my manuscript, I had written that I wish all members of the Swedish Riksdag could realize that Sweden today lives with a serious threat, but when I heard the speeches here, I was actually positively surprised. From left to right, everyone is aware that the threat against Sweden today is serious. This applies to foreign terrorist organizations, violent extremists, and foreign states.

Sweden is today not only a legitimate target - as the country has been for a long time - but a prioritized target. If one has worked with or is knowledgeable about counter-terrorism, one understands what it means to be a prioritized target. It means that people are now sitting and planning and preparing attacks in Sweden.

We cannot turn a blind eye to this. There is no room for the kind of naivety that we have seen for so many years in this room, in this house, and on the other side of the Strömmen when it comes to domestic crime. What we see today regarding shootings and explosions in Sweden is a result of political passivity and naivety.

We must stop this. When it comes to the fight against terrorism, we must be more alert and more proactive. We must, from right to left, across party lines, be united and clear-sighted. We must listen to those who have knowledge—to those who know where the threats come from, when they come, and where the threats are. We must take in facts and knowledge. We cannot fall behind; we cannot afford it. We must be prepared when it happens, because it will happen again.

It is a good thought that all people are good in some way, but for that reason, one must not close one's eyes to the fact that there are actually people out there who are evil and who do not wish well. There are people who do not hesitate to carry out attacks, kill innocent people and cause chaos. There are people who want to instill fear in society. Now I am talking about terrorists.

I want to repeat that they are among us in this society now, while I am speaking about it here. We have already seen several terror attacks, and we have also heard about them here. Some of them have links to violent extremism and Islamism. There are also cases down south where it came from the far-right side.

We should probably thank the intelligence agencies that exist in this country for the fact that we have not seen more attacks. I therefore believe that we must be positive towards what these intelligence agencies request from us politicians in the form of tools.

In its annual report, the Swedish Security Service (Säkerhetspolisen) states that Sweden should not be a platform for foreign powers or violent extremism. This is so obvious that it really should not need to be said. The work of preventing terrorist attacks must be prioritized.

Today we see how states and groups try to weaken the democratic society we live in. They want to weaken the image of Sweden. They do this by influencing so that trust in society, the state, authorities, institutions, and organizations is weakened. They spread lies and conspiracy theories, including about the Swedish state kidnapping Muslim children. We have also seen Quran burnings, as was spoken about earlier.

This is based on the negative image of Sweden abroad, but it also affects groups here in Sweden. Young people tend to be radicalized because of these actions and lies.

I am therefore pleased that the government has now developed a new unified strategy against violent extremism and terrorism. The idea is that one shall work much more long-term to prevent violent extremism and terrorism. One shall prevent terrorist attacks and other ideologically motivated crimes, protect people and the functions of society, as well as manage situations during and after an attack.

In practical terms, it is about giving the actors who actively work with the four points I just mentioned a mandate to ensure that work is carried out in an even more efficient way. It is about everything from countering radicalization, among other things within the correctional services, within Sis and in school environments, and actively working with counter-campaigns to meet the disinformation that is spread, not least digitally, to having a police force that can intervene if terrorist attacks occur or, in the best case, prevent terrorist attacks.

Furthermore, we shall work to prevent crime in Sweden from financing terrorist groups abroad. Law enforcement authorities must become more attentive to the fact that the proceeds from economic crime and fraud today are being used to finance extremism abroad.

Mr. Speaker! The Government is very clear with the new strategy that it wants to see a more effective fight against terrorism and extremism on all levels. I and the Liberals have great confidence in all those authorities that work together to make our society safer and to prevent terror.

(Applause)

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

Richard Jomshof (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I want to start by addressing Anna Wallentheim and the Social Democrats in light of a previous exchange here today. If we look at the accelerating segregation and the accelerating exclusion, it is clear that this is de facto linked to the far too large immigration to Sweden over the last 25-30 years. We see it in suburb after suburb and in municipality after municipality.

It is clear that the primary blame lies with the parties and politicians who have created this situation, but we must also be aware that there are very many people in this country - in these suburbs and municipalities - who do not want to be a part of our society, who deliberately choose to isolate themselves and who work against our democracy and our freedom of speech. They have connections to Muslim dictatorships that are allowed to pump money into our country. This money is used to build mosques, and it is pumped into cultural associations. Imams and other representatives spew out their hatred towards our democracy and our country. These people - these Islamists - have also succeeded in infiltrating several political parties.

There we have an explanation for the great segregation, the alienation and the division. It is not only there that we find the explanation, but we find a very large part of the explanation there. This cannot be denied.

The only way to counter the Islamists, the segregation, and the violence we see linked to the Islamists and their anti-democratic activities is to fight Islamism, significantly reduce immigration, and deport them. That is how we must work. We do not solve this with juice, buns, and youth centers; we must keep that for ourselves. These are dangerous people.

I also want to address Rasmus Ling. In an exchange of remarks, he spoke about provocations and security threats. I assume he was referring to my statement about burning a hundred Qurans as well.

This is important. If Islamists in our country or outside our borders say that we should not draw roundabout dogs, I think we should draw more roundabout dogs. If Islamists inside or outside the country's borders say that we should ban caricatures of Muhammad and that we should not draw such, then we shall draw caricatures of Muhammad. If Islamists inside or outside our borders say that we should shut down newspapers like Charlie Hebdo, we shall support these newspapers, ensure that they can be published and let them operate freely. If Islamists inside or outside our borders say that we should not burn Qurans, then we shall burn Qurans.

There are things here that one might not like. There may be opinions and expressions of opinions that one does not like, or ways of working within the framework of democracy that one does not appreciate, but it is permitted. In my world, I can support things even if I do not appreciate what is said or the methods used.

If one wants to ban these things, one is running the Islamists' errands. Then one is fighting our democracy and our freedom of speech. I could never imagine doing such a thing. Freedom of speech is the most important thing we have. Democracy is the finest thing we have. Either one is for it in all circumstances, or one is against it.

(Applause)

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

Rasmus Ling (MP)

Mr. Speaker! The argument that if someone says you shouldn't do something, then you do the opposite, I think is childish. It is one thing to uphold civil and political rights. That is what I think we should do. I believe that Richard Jomshof and I have been completely in agreement that we should not make any changes to the Public Order Act, for example, to give the police the possibility to deny permits for Quran burnings.

However, my view is that as a representative in the Swedish Riksdag, one actually also has a broader responsibility. And if one calls for these types of things, one also has a responsibility for that.

It is one thing to ensure that a newspaper has the possibility to publish what it wants. But if one calls for publication, one must actually take responsibility for it. And I think, Mr. Speaker, that what Richard Jomshof did this summer with his calls was deeply irresponsible.

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

Richard Jomshof (SD)

Mr. Speaker! My responsibility as an elected politician in democratic Sweden is to safeguard our democracy and our freedom of speech. This also applies in those situations where I do not like a certain opinion or a certain expression of opinion. It means that I can be against, for example, Quran burnings but still say that they should be permitted, and that is where we are today. I do not think that one should burn books at all, but I safeguard the right to do so because it is permitted.

Should one not be able to take this fight as a politician? Who will then do it? If we cannot defend our freedom of speech when Islamists attack it and want to restrict and limit it, who will then do it?

It is, after all, permitted to burn Qurans. And we see that burnings are taking place even now. One can see on social media that this seems to be happening a few times a week. One can think what one wants about that. But it is permitted. But now it is not getting much attention. Perhaps it is because people have become satisfied in Turkey, what do I know. But I will never bow down to Islamists and antidemocrats. I will always stand up for our democracy and our freedom of speech. It is my damned right - excuse the expression - to do so in all circumstances.

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

Rasmus Ling (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Freedom of speech must be protected; there is no question about that. On the other hand, a right to express something does not mean that one should do so in all circumstances. And as I said, Mr. Speaker, I think it is a childish argument to say that if someone says that one should not do something, one does exactly the opposite. I do not think it is mature and responsible.

Mr. Speaker! Richard Jomshof previously said that one should burn Qurans if someone says that one should not do it. Now he says that it is a behavior that he does not think one should engage in. He actually has to make up his mind, Mr. Speaker. Is this something that one should do or not do? That we have freedom of speech and that we should safeguard it is for me both obvious and something that I will continue to fight for as long as I am politically active.

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

Richard Jomshof (SD)

Mr. Speaker! We can agree on one thing. It is clear that one can think that there are things that one should not do. There are many things that I myself do not intend to do, even though I have the right to do them within the framework that our democracy, constitution, and freedom of speech give us the right to act within. There are many things that I will never say and do because I do not think one should do them. But it is still the case that there are things that you are allowed to do, regardless of what I think about it, and that right I defend.

Once again: If an antidemocrat acts to restrict and limit what we have the right to do in Sweden, we shall stand up for it. Then I agree that it is considerably more tasteful to draw a caricature than to, for example, set fire to a Quran, as in this case. But both things are permitted. And I think it is problematic if we allow ourselves to be restricted by a dictator, a half-dictator, an Islamist, or whoever it may be who directs threats against our country. Then we shall stand up for the right to do it in all instances, even if we think that it might not be something that one should engage in at all. But as long as it is permitted, it is permitted.

National strategy against violent extremism and terrorism - prevent, deter, protect and respond

Then one can always discuss whether this right should be restricted. That is another discussion. Should one do that and we get a new law, then is it this that applies. But regardless, that which one has the right to do within the framework that our constitution sets up, I will always defend, even in those cases where I think it is reprehensible.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(A decision was to be taken on 18 April.)

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