New tasks for the Centre against Violence-Oriented Extremism

Anna Wallentheim (S)

Mr. Speaker! For those listening to the debate, whether it is here in the chamber or at home, it may perhaps sometimes seem a bit strange when we go up to the rostrum and debate matters where all parties are in agreement, and so it is in this case. Sometimes it can be because one, as a party, wants to mark which position one stands for, and sometimes it is of pure personal interest. That is the case for me in this instance.

It concerns, above all, the new mandate to provide support to actors who handle cases where there is a concern about a school attack, which Center for Countering Violent Extremism, or CVE, as I will refer to it in the rest of the debate, now receives.

Mr. Speaker! As a teacher, I have seen how school can, should, and must be a safe place where children can grow and develop. When that safety is threatened, we as politicians must act – not only in hindsight but also through preventive work. Attacks against children and young people are some of the most ruthless things that exist. That someone would target a school – the place where our children and young people should feel safe and where they are to learn about life, society, and the world – with the intent to kill is, for me, completely incomprehensible. But we know that it happens, and we unfortunately know that it also happens in Sweden.

For a long time, school attacks were considered to be a predominantly American problem in a relatively high degree. In the USA, unfortunately, both 2023 and 2024 set records in the number of school attacks. But in the last decade, we have seen how this has also reached our country. From the 1960s onwards, about ten attacks have occurred in Swedish schools, and most have occurred in the last ten years. Three of them have occurred in my home region Skåne: in Eslöv, Kristianstad and Malmö.

I debated this in the chamber already almost exactly one year ago against the Minister for Justice in an interpellation debate. It was not due to the attacks that occurred in themselves, but because the police, social services, and CVE then raised the alarm about the discovery that more school attacks than ever before were being planned in Sweden.

We see, in fact, how a growing group of young people, almost always boys, isolate themselves from reality and immerse themselves in dangerous online forums where extremism, hate, and the romanticization of violence increase. In these forums, among other things, the school attacks in the USA are celebrated, and young Swedish boys are encouraged to follow suit. We see how, above all, far-right environments and conspiracy theories play an ever-increasing role in this radicalization, and some of the horrific acts that have occurred in Sweden bear witness to exactly this.

Against that background, it is good and necessary that CVE is now given new tasks. From March 1, 2025, CVE will be a point of contact for authorities and other decision-making bodies that review publicly funded activities to ensure that no funds go to extremism. But above all, it is good that CVE is tasked with providing support to municipalities, schools, and other actors who handle cases where there is a concern about school attacks.

Mr. Speaker! This is a development that we Social Democrats have identified and taken very seriously. In our budget motion, we therefore proposed an additional 40 million kronor to CVE to ensure that they have the resources to handle the increasing extremism and support the work against school attacks. It is about giving CVE the conditions to assist schools and authorities but also to work preventatively to prevent young boys from being drawn into these destructive environments.

We know that the great challenge lies in the flow of hate, violence, and extremism online that almost never ends. We see it in how young men who have carried out school attacks themselves describe that they have been radicalized on social media, TikTok, and Snapchat, where they have been driven on by a community that glorifies violence.

The attacks we have already seen are a sufficient warning signal that this must never happen again. We all have a responsibility to reverse the development and provide the school and society with the resources required by countering the environments that radicalize young people and by ensuring that the preventive work receives the support it needs.

For me as a social democrat, it can be summarized like this: Invest in welfare, and invest in increased social cohesion instead of, for example, lowering taxes for the richest!

With those words, I welcome CVE's new mandate and move for the approval of the committee's proposal in the report.

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

Torsten Elofsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Initially, I would like to express my approval of the committee's proposal in the report.

For the sake of the audience, I thought I would briefly describe what CVE works with and what its mission is. The Center for Countering Violent Extremism, CVE, is a contact point in the preventive work against violent extremism. CVE is a unit under the Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention, Brå.

It is part of CVE's mandate to bring together actors from different parts of the country and from different sectors in the work of preventing violent extremism. CVE has a large contact network that includes municipalities, regions, national authorities, civil society actors, and private enterprises throughout Sweden.

As part of strengthening the government's work against violent extremism, the government has expanded CVE's mandate. As mentioned here, CVE will from March 1 be responsible for two new tasks. One task is to be a contact point for authorities and other decision-making bodies that allocate public funds or in other ways review publicly funded activities. The other mandate is to support authorities and organizations regarding feared attacks against schools.

Mr. Speaker! Within the framework of that assignment, CVE shall be able to assist with in-depth reviews of operations that can be assumed to have links to violent extremism or other anti-democratic environments. The assignment includes, as stated, providing tailored support to municipalities, authorities, and other actors who, in their operations, handle cases where there is a concern that one or more persons will carry out a school attack.

It is, however, important to emphasize that it is precisely support that it is about. CVE has no decision-making authority, but is more of an expert body that can provide a basis for decisions to the other authorities, which have the overall responsibility.

The assignment means that CVE will need to handle more information than today - hence the proposal that is now on the table and which we are now debating.

The new law shall apply to the processing of personal data at Brå when the authority performs both the contact point task and the support task regarding concern for school attacks. A prerequisite for the law to be applicable is that the processing is fully or partially automated and that the personal data are included in, or will be included in, a register. The law also contains limitations regarding the storage and registration of data.

It should be pointed out that CVE is not to build up a large register of these details, but rather that one needs to collect the details in order to be able to perform its review and give its statement in the various cases. It is not, however, said that CVE is required to do so, but it is an assessment that CVE itself makes as to in which cases one should intervene and not.

In conclusion, we in the Christian Democrats see the proposed authorization to process personal data as an important component in CVE's ability to perform the in-depth reviews and conclusions that will likely be required in the new assignment.

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

Rasmus Ling (MP)

Mr. Speaker! This is my 131st committee debate, including special debates. It may not be a jubilee in itself, but it is the last time I stand in the speaker's chair and debate. I will come to the matter, Mr. Speaker, but I will also begin by making a small digression.

The first time I stood here and debated was in November 2014. Just over ten years have passed since then. It was a debate about an interpellation that the Moderaternas then-group leader Anna Kinberg Batra had written to the then newly appointed Finance Minister Magdalena Andersson, which concerned what effects the Ministry of Finance assessed the tax increases in the memorandum Certain proposals on the tax and social security area before the budget bill for 2015 would have on employment, hours worked, and GDP.

It was an exciting time. It has been a very exciting journey. So much has changed in Sweden and the world. It has been very eventful. I am very happy that I have had the opportunity to represent Miljöpartiet, my constituency, Malmö stad, and the Swedish people during this time.

Already back then, in 2014, the world had begun to become more uncertain. But it was still on a smaller scale, I want to assert, than what we see now. Also, the debates and the social climate were different in various ways.

In Malmö, we had for a long series of years been plagued by gang violence, but it was not a national issue in the same way as it has been in recent years. Unfortunately, one must say that this has been high up on the agenda, against the background of a very dull and negative development.

At this time, Russia had quite recently, in February 2014, annexed Crimea. It is easy to state that the rest of the world both could and should have acted in a completely different way than what was done then. Admittedly, steps were taken to prepare the defense, not only the military but also the psychological with several, but undoubtedly the EU, USA and others should have been significantly tougher towards Russia than what was the case at this time.

Now we are where we are and have the situation we have. A plea and an appeal to you who will remain in this house is that Sweden must continue and increase the support to Ukraine for as long as it is needed.

During this time, there was also a focus on many other important issues. The autumn of 2015 came to be remembered as the autumn of the refugee crisis. In a short time, tens of thousands of refugees arrived in Europe and also in Sweden. We made a very large effort. Many people in Sweden made a very large effort. But Sweden also changed the policy. Sweden introduced ID checks on the Öresund Bridge from Denmark, which I voted against. Sweden changed the policy and introduced a significantly more restrictive policy than before.

There were measures during this time that were good. But in the tightening of the migration policy, my opinion is that Sweden went too far and still does.

We moved forward. The year 2016 was a tough year for Miljöpartiet in the government. We had difficult debates about Förbifart Stockholm, Vattenfall's coal mines, and Bromma Airport. Today we can state that Bromma Airport is practically closed and that the coal mines in Europe are being phased out. Förbifarten is expected to be completed but is not yet finished.

Mr. Speaker! Terrorism, which this matter concerns at least indirectly, has also become an increasingly worsening problem during this time. We could see tragic terrorist attacks in Paris, Manchester, Copenhagen, Nice, and in many other places. This was also something that hit our own capital, Stockholm, with the horrific attack on Drottninggatan.

Several cross-bloc agreements were made, at least two major ones, to prevent terrorism, which has also been important. It is inherent in the nature of the matter that it is difficult to evaluate how good something has been that is intended to prevent something from happening, but even though we have had what can be called attacks in school environments, we have avoided the type of attack in Sweden that we were forced to endure in April 2017.

Mr. Speaker! This is a bit off-topic again, but I also want to briefly mention the corona pandemic that arrived at the beginning of 2020 and held both Sweden and the world in its grip until 2022. This was a great tragedy. Many died of or with the disease, and the consequences of the infection, not least the consequences of the attempts to curb the infection, became very large.

This also had consequences for how we worked in the Swedish Riksdag during this period - historically and in many ways also instructive. We had to see each other less and maintain social distance. Society was more closed.

Sweden stood out. We did not go as far as many other countries did. This is one of the things I am very happy about, not least that we were able to keep primary schools open. We also kept the upper secondary schools open for a long time, even though they were eventually closed there as well. We perhaps should not have closed them at all, but it could have been significantly worse. We must also remember that these were, of course, extremely difficult trade-offs.

There are also things I could have said about the January agreement, government crises and so on, but I will save them for future memoirs, Facebook posts or the like. Instead, I shall conclude this by thanking a few people.

I have had many debates with the current Minister for Justice, who is not here today, in the chamber and in other contexts. I want to thank them in the committee, both those who belong to the united opposition and those who belong to the majority - naturally also in previous committees.

Not least, I want to thank the Speaker and the Speaker's Presidium. I also want to thank everyone who works here in the house but who one does not always think of. It is everyone from the administration who keeps everything in order, staff at the Helpdesk who with great portions of patience help members who do not have a grasp of how technology works, to everyone else. A big thank you for ensuring that this bastion of democracy functions year-round, and good luck with the continued work. Thank you very much!

(Applause)

(TALMANNEN: Since the member concluded with such a kind thank you, I do not intend to point out that the member did not say a word about the committee report or that he exceeded the reported speaking time by more than 50 percent, but instead I thank the member for ten years of service in the Swedish Parliament and for democracy.)

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

Anna Wallentheim (S)

Mr. Speaker! It may not be common for me to request a reply from either Miljöpartiet or Rasmus Ling, but I believe that over ten years in the Swedish Riksdag and over hundreds of debates in the chamber should be acknowledged.

When I entered the Committee on Justice in the autumn of 2021, it was not easy. It is not easy to have sat in a committee for seven years and then switch to another one a year before a parliamentary election and be expected to familiarize oneself with all the issues that the committee handles.

Mr. Speaker! I have the advantage of belonging to a party that has many members in every committee, while Rasmus Ling represents a party where he is alone. Every time I have sat in the chamber, I have been incredibly inspired by the commitment and the knowledge that Rasmus Ling possesses. I want you to take that with you. You have an incredibly strong commitment to the principles of the rule of law, for which you have stood up straight here in the chamber. But I know that the member has an equally great commitment to human rights, the environment and climate, as well as for all people's right to feel safe in this country.

I hope that the member takes this commitment with them regardless of what awaits in the future. You should know that you have inspired me and many others to dare to step into politics and to dare to take the fight. This last debate was perhaps not as lively and fun as you might have wished a final debate to be since we all in the committee are in agreement, but I wish you luck with all that is to come.

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

Rasmus Ling (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you very much for those wonderful words!

It has been a privilege to work with Anna Wallentheim, and our parties have during many of these ten years – particularly seven years, but also the other three years – had a cooperation where we have sometimes thought exactly alike and tried to push forward, and sometimes have seen differently on things. But all of this has always been with both our parties' and Sweden's best interests in mind.

There is much that I will miss, but I can promise that the commitment to a sustainable, just and peaceful world as well as a sustainable, just and peaceful society I will continue to carry with me - regardless of what form it may come to take.

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

TALMANNEN

Thank you, Rasmus Ling, for the good cooperation in your role as group leader when we had a lot to do with each other. Warm thanks!

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

Gudrun Nordborg (V)

Mr. Speaker! The elements of the weather have caused me to be delayed for the debate, but I nevertheless want to take the opportunity to say something about Center against violence-promoting extremism.

The report we are actually discussing, the committee has been completely in agreement on, and it is important to note that. It is far from always the case that we agree, but here it was a simple decision when it comes to introducing new confidentiality rules to protect reforms that have already been hammered out for the center.

The center shall become a contact point for authorities and decision-making bodies that allocate public funds and which may concern violent extremism. It is also about the center assisting when operations that can be suspected of having links to violent extremism are investigated and scrutinized.

New tasks for the center against violence-promoting extremism

This center is somewhat original. It was established in 2018 within Brå, and it has developed to perform a very important work in terms of preventive measures and offerings. The center itself does not stand for the measures, but those who work there inspire, spread experiences, and gather those who have broad knowledge and experience in different areas. This includes, among other things, protecting the school's activities against attacks, and it also concerns extremism in general.

So, they are trying to work towards coordination and efficiency in the preventive work, and it is such dimensions that Vänsterpartiet marks as generally important. I think that the center can be seen as an example of how one can work nationally and internationally and bring down experiences to the local level.

The Centre develops support materials, produces reports, and collaborates with relevant actors, including civil society. But it does not take over responsibility; instead, it tries to inspire in other ways. It offers service via telephone, and it is easy to get in touch to receive advice. One can also reach out to municipalities and organizations with mobile teams if something is particularly urgent.

Work is also being done with a series of networks. These are authority networks that cover all 22 different authorities, and they gather as needed. There is also a temporary authority network to receive returnees from previous IS-controlled areas, which started in 2019.

There are other permanent networks for social services in large cities, for schools, and for gaming where civil society, authorities, and the gaming industry collaborate.

Investment has also been made in civil society, where efforts are being made to create cooperation between those who work preventatively against violent extremism and de-radicalization activities.

With this, I want to praise CVE, and I think this reform is important.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(Decisions were made under § 13.)

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