Special debate on the occasion of anonymous influence campaigns and how trust in the party system and democracy can be maintained

Malin Björk (C)

Madam Speaker! Last Wednesday, at the solemn conclusion of the parliamentary session, Speaker Andreas Norlén spoke about our democracy and emphasized the importance of all of us acting within the framework of commonly agreed rules of the game. The Speaker expressed that he sees the Riksdag as Sweden's most important political arena for debate and stated that we debate here in a respectful manner.

But now it is to live in a bygone era to believe that it is what we say here and how we behave towards each other in the Riksdag that determines what image our voters get of us. No, far more important for the majority is what we say and do online - and what others say about us there.

Here in the chamber, it is clear who stands behind certain opinions. The sender must be just as clear for the person who reads a political message online. How else can voters make informed choices?

Anonymity on the internet clearly contradicts the democratic rules of the game. Acting in defiance of them must have consequences. The Center Party wants to see measures against this. What responsibility are the rest of you prepared to take?

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

Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)

Madam Speaker! I would like to begin by thanking the Center Party for the opportunity to discuss these important issues today.

Transparency and openness in the political debate are crucial both so that we who participate in opinion-forming can respond to what is said and so that voters can form an opinion and demand accountability in hindsight. It is also crucial for the credibility of the political debate that we who participate in this stand for straightforward and open opinion-forming, and this applies of course particularly to political parties. We all have a great responsibility to contribute to objectivity and clarity regarding messages and senders, this of course regardless of in which forums the debate is conducted, including social media.

The question we are to debate here today has more depths than just what responsibility we as politicians have to safeguard, care for, and maintain our democracy. Our system of government and our way of life are under pressure from both domestic and foreign actors who oppose our democratic decision-making.

It is known that there is a broad so-called constitutional threat from several different actors aimed at weakening democratic society. Part of that threat consists of foreign actors and authoritarian states acting offensively against Swedish interests, not least through threats of attacks from violent extremism. Another part of the threat consists of the spread of misleading information, rumors, disinformation, and violence-glorifying propaganda. The latter contributes to increasing contradictions in society and to eroding trust in society's central institutions. It can also contribute to an increased threat against various representatives of our society.

The government takes this threat very seriously. Our society shall be characterized by openness, democracy, and respect for fundamental freedoms and rights. People shall be able to move safely and freely, participate in gatherings, and express their opinions without fear. Digital tools that can be used anonymously or under a false identity, however, create many and varied opportunities to, for example, expose elected representatives and others who participate in the public debate to disinformation, cyberattacks, defamation, and other online harassment.

The government is actively working to increase resilience against such influence attempts. That work is also a central part of the new strategy against violent extremism and terrorism that the government decided on in January this year. According to the strategy, it is important to identify disinformation and false rumors spread by actors in Sweden, partly because they are picked up and exploited by violent extremist environments in their propaganda.

The government has also taken other measures. Citizens' knowledge and ability to understand the flow of information is a prerequisite for a resilient democracy. The Media Authority has therefore recently been tasked to work long-term to strengthen the public's media and information literacy. The assignment involves proactive work to strengthen the public's ability to identify and evaluate different types of messages, including those that have been manipulated, for example through the use of artificial intelligence.

The work to protect our democracy, our freedom of speech, and our way of life continues. As stated, the government carries out this work through a broad range of measures.

Let me conclude by emphasizing once again that it is we who have and seek the voters' trust who must lead by example. A party-political discussion was needed on how we can strengthen the work to spread correct and objective information. A special responsibility also rests, as I have said, on us who participate in the public debate.

(Applause)

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

Anders Ygeman (S)

Madam Speaker! The Sweden Democrats have been caught systematically using fake, anonymous accounts, so-called troll accounts, a working method that all Swedish parliamentary parties reject and which the Prime Minister himself has described as dangerous.

Using fake, anonymous accounts aims to deceive the Swedish people, to pose as someone other than who one is, and to give the impression that there are many more who hold an opinion than there actually are. It is a working method that authoritarian regimes and movements have used for a long time. The most well-known are, perhaps, Putin's troll armies in Saint Petersburg.

A review of the troll factory's activities also shows that several of the messages spread correspond with narratives used by Russian troll factories to destabilize Europe. A staff member in SD's troll factory has furthermore been revealed to be conducting Russian propaganda in social media.

It becomes even worse when this fraud is financed by tax money via party support and when municipal party support, which aims to broaden the understanding of local democracy, is funneled further and used centrally to undermine that same democracy.

The largest party in the government support has since the scandal was revealed signaled that it disregards not only the rules of the game that were established in the internal cooperation but also the rules we established in order to be a functioning democracy. Jimmie Åkesson defends the method, and his wild accusations against free, independent media show what an extreme party Sverigedemokraterna is.

After these revelations, we have demanded that the Prime Minister get to the bottom of this and how it can affect the democratic conversation and Swedish election campaigns. We have proposed a long series of measures, all of which have been rejected by the government. Instead, Ulf Kristersson and the government have settled for two employees switching desks at the Sweden Democrats' office and toasting with Pommac.

The questions remain, over a month after the revelation: How many more examples are there? How many troll accounts do the Sverigedemokraterna have that have not been revealed by TV4? What is required for Ulf Kristersson and the government to act for the best of Sweden and the Swedish people?

It would be good if the Sverigedemokraterna representative in this debate clarified how many more anonymous accounts Sverigedemokraterna has and if the party intends to continue using fake accounts. The messages have been anything but consistent on that point.

Also, the questions to Justice Minister Gunnar Strömmer remain: What do the Prime Minister and the government intend to do to ensure that the Sweden Democrats' troll factories are closed? What will you do to prevent tax money from being used directly against the overall purpose of the grant allocation? What do you intend to do so that fake, so-called anonymous accounts are not allowed to spread hate, threats, and misleading information?

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

Mattias Bäckström Johansson (SD)

Madam Speaker! The Sweden Democrats welcome this special debate, which primarily concerns democracy and freedom of speech. These are issues that there is every reason to talk more about and which are constantly relevant. However, the background to the debate is more murky. The purpose is to turn up the tone even further, to present information that is factually incorrect and to make allegations of hate, threats, and disinformation. But more polarization and bickering is really not needed in Swedish politics.

The Sweden Democrats as a party have experienced meeting disruptions in a long series of elections without it causing any major debate. Rather, they have been pushed on and cheered on by political opponents.

Physical attacks from political opponents have occurred at political gatherings and in connection with the Sverigedemokraternas election meetings.

As late as 2006, the Sweden Democrats' websites were shut down following pressure from the Social Democratic government. This led to the responsible minister resigning.

Before the 2010 general election, public services Sveriges Radio instructed all its stations to refer to the Sweden Democrats with negative epithets in their broadcasts.

For a long time, Sverigedemokraternas representatives have been systematically excluded from trade unions.

In the two most recent elections, the Sverigedemokraterna websites have gone down in waves as they have been subjected to extensive overload attacks. At the same time, accounts of active party representatives have been removed from social media following mass reports from political opponents.

Madam Speaker! These were examples of what the Sweden Democrats have had to endure, but when we highlight such things and describe reality as it is, it is quickly called taking on the victim's mantle. It is actually revolting that even such tangible democratic abuses are not taken seriously. This is the result of decades of suspicion and disinformation about our party and all people who sympathize with it. This is unacceptable.

More needs to be done to strengthen our democracy and freedom of speech. That all citizens' voices, regardless of political affiliation, shall be treated with respect and justice is a fundamental principle that we must all defend.

The Sweden Democrats will always be a strong voice and force against all forms of hate and threats, regardless of who is affected. We will continue to work to ensure that no one is diminished or silenced because of their political views. That, Madam Speaker, is something that there is reason to talk much more about in this chamber.

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

Samuel Gonzalez Westling (V)

Madam Speaker! Many of us were shocked a few weeks before the EU parliamentary election when we were reached by Kalla fakta's revelations - while at the same time we were not surprised at all. It was unfortunately not shocking to find out that the Sverigedemokraterna operated a troll factory. What shocked us was the party's reaction to the revelation. They showed a total lack of self-criticism and rather a pride in how they anonymously smear their opponents.

A shift has occurred in our society during the last decades. The political conversation has been betrayed. The way people speak about their opponents has changed. It is particularly noticeable among anonymous debaters and public debaters without a clear party affiliation.

It is common for parties and their representatives to describe the horrors that will occur if the opponent gains power. Such will politics probably always be. There has, however, always been a form of honesty in those descriptions. One has not misinterpreted the proposals themselves but made a political analysis of the consequences of them. The new thing is that in different ways, one invents what the opponents think in order to blacken them in that way.

And with the emergence of social media, serious public debate has taken heavy blows, and it has become much harder to be a politician or a seriously scrutinizing journalist. It is a pity, but probably something we have to live with. What is serious is that when parties and political representatives begin to act anonymously to fuel these trends, we risk undermining trust in the entire political system.

We, who according to the Instrument of Government are the people's primary representatives, must not forget that we are also, in many cases, role models. This brings with it a responsibility not only to make wise decisions to the greatest extent possible, but also to actually try to lead by example. It can be extremely difficult in times when malice and exaggerations to a large extent generate likes and popularity in the flora of social media.

I think everyone should give some serious thought to how we in society act towards one another and what kind of society we want to have. I will return to what I think we and the government should do.

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

Malin Björk (C)

Madam Speaker! I count on everyone here knowing that Internet Research Agency is the name of the troll factory, abbreviated IRA, which was housed in an office building in Saint Petersburg and had up to a thousand employees. If anyone happens to have missed how they operated, I can recommend the research report Understanding Mass Influence which was made for the Australian Department of Defence. We must all understand how influence factories work in the shadows and, above all, take measures against anonymous accounts driven for partisan purposes.

The American prosecutor Robert Mueller indicted several Russian citizens who worked for the IRA's troll factory for having obtained false identities in the USA and opened hundreds of accounts on social media. According to the indictment, the Russians had, through fraud, weakened and obstructed the government's legal functions. The troll factory IRA aimed to sow division in the American political system ahead of the 2016 presidential election, spread mistrust towards the candidates, raise the level of conflict, and preferably cause public outcries and clashes.

Here at home, Språktidningen picked up the word troll factory already in the same year that IRA was revealed. In the definition, it states that those who work at troll factories are paid to pump out the client's opinions in social media using different identities. What came out in the Kalla fakta program in May is the reason why the Centerpartiet initiated today's special debate.

Madam Speaker! Troll factories, or the systematic use of influence campaigns without a visible sender, have been a tool for totalitarian and authoritarian states throughout history. It is an ideological weapon to influence public opinion and politics without the efforts and the true sender being noticed.

In the academician Ingrid Carlberg's book Marionetterna, the international propaganda factory that Vladimir Lenin and his Bolsheviks built up after the Russian revolution is described, with the goal of reaching a new world order. The factory was created through a media empire based in Berlin. The Russian sender was well hidden. Today, Vladimir Putin acts in the same spirit but with completely new opportunities to reach out, for today we have smart phones in our hands and can constantly scroll through social media. The click society is tailor-made for hidden influence operations.

Strategic delusions do not belong in a democracy, for democracy is built on truth and openness. The Jewish author Arthur Koestler definitively broke with communism after the Second World War and subsequently wrote that our only weapon in the struggle against authoritarian forces is truth, sincerity, and courage.

Madam Speaker! I demand truth, sincerity and courage in this assembly. Do we stand up for the democratic rules of the game or is someone willing to compromise on them?

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

Christian Carlsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! Not spreading what is false, but sticking to the truth and treating others with respect are fundamental values in the tradition of ideas that the Christian Democrats were formed to guard. They are fundamental values in the value base that once built Sweden and the Western world into strong societies characterized by community and a sense of responsibility for one another. These values need not only to characterize the public conversation but the entire Swedish society. Therefore, it is serious when representatives of political parties act in opposition to them.

It is wrong when parties are prepared to use anonymous accounts as a cover or use "frontman" setups to, with an unclear sender, smear others or express themselves in a derogatory and offensive manner about others. It is wrong when parties engage in anonymous campaigns, which they themselves are not prepared to stand for.

One thinks, Madam Speaker, that all parties should be so proud of their own message that they openly want to stand by it and truly be associated with it. Regardless of this, ordinary people need to be able to trust what is said. Democracy deserves it, and the Swedish people deserve it.

As we Christian Democrats see it, it is therefore not sufficient for a political party to hide behind anonymous accounts that make it unclear who actually owns and controls them, or behind facades where it appears to happen in secret. Political parties' communication must have a clear sender. This applies to SD, it applies to S, and it applies to all other parties. We in Kristdemokraterna are prepared to contribute to an agreement between the parties to collectively take responsibility for this.

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

Jan Riise (MP)

Madam Speaker! Freedom of opinion is, according to the Instrument of Government, a cornerstone of Swedish democracy. Freedom of opinion, in turn, includes oversight and accessibility to public activities as far as possible. Transparent decision-making processes and documented exercise of authority, as well as objective and correct information, are important pieces of the puzzle. In the next sentence of the Instrument of Government, it is stated that democracy is realized through a representative and parliamentary system of government.

It feels intuitively reasonable that Members of Parliament, ministers and parties have a great responsibility and a will to live and act according to these conditions. This includes, I think, Madam Speaker, a clear boundary, a red line, against financing and other support with more or less hidden intentions and objectives or anonymous influence operations, such as those we are talking about today.

The traces are frightening. It is not enough that we have a debate about trolls, alternative facts, and direct lies - it's all in the optics, they say in the USA. The important thing is how it looks. Things are not always - or even far from always - what they appear to be. This is a known phenomenon and method of work within both advertising and political campaigns and did not start with President Trump at all.

As Malin Björk just said, this already existed a hundred years ago when large sums of money flowed out of Russia to finance a world revolution. Since then, a number of PR geniuses - some for all intents and purposes self-appointed - have tried to influence the political agenda. If it has not been about people who are dangerous in one way or another, it has been about products that were said not to be so dangerous, for example cigarettes and oil.

Madam Speaker! There are, however, signs of improvements. In March this year, the EU launched a new framework for political advertising with, among other things, requirements for transparency regarding senders and costs as well as openness regarding target groups.

Miljöpartiet has, for its part, together with Centerpartiet, launched the idea of a committee initiative on the possibility of supplementary directives to the so-called transparency investigation, alternatively some other form of investigation regarding the financing of parties for just those types of anonymous activities. Liberalerna have presented a similar initiative in the aforementioned investigation, which is now being handled over the summer.

I look forward to the discussion continuing. It is important for several reasons: partly to clarify a common position that concerns the fact that senders in political discussions should be known, and partly to mark a development towards greater transparency in the parties' financing and finances. We have already developed rules and guidelines for which money flows into the operations. Now we and the voters also need to have an opportunity to see how they are used.

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

Jakob Olofsgård (L)

Madam Speaker! During the election campaign, it was noted that the Sweden Democrats operate anonymous accounts on social media. It concerns fake accounts, where they present themselves as someone other than themselves.

This is a systematic threat to the Tidö Agreement, for which the Sweden Democrats have apologized. But for the Liberals, the issue is greater than the Tidö Agreement and greater than the Sweden Democrats. The review that has been conducted sheds light on something that should not exist in Swedish democracy.

The Sweden Democrats are not the first party to be caught with anonymous accounts. If nothing is done about the situation, this is probably not the last time something such happens either.

It is of course clear that parties in Sweden have the right to express their opinions with humor and even in a blunt way. It is not primarily about the tone of the debate, but about the rules of the game for how the debate is to be conducted in the first place. A fundamental principle is that you stand by your opinion. Call someone an idiot, but stand by it!

We mean that the basis for citizens' ability to hold their politicians accountable is transparency. I do not believe anyone would accept a company engaging in false marketing or misleading customers online. So why should it be possible at all for political parties to do that with voters? The Liberals therefore want to see a ban on parties spreading political messages anonymously.

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

Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)

Madam Speaker! In addition to the responsibility that rests on us as elected representatives and the active work that the government is undertaking to strengthen the democratic society's resilience here at home, I would also like to highlight some important aspects of the work that we carry out together with other countries at the EU level.

Within the EU, a very active work has been ongoing in recent years to both strengthen our resilience against different types of influence and increase transparency. This is, of course, both about protecting our democratic system of government and about safeguarding fundamental freedoms and rights.

There is a regulation on an internal market for digital services, the so-called DSA regulation. There is now an obligation for the largest platform services to assess and manage risks in matters including disinformation.

For a couple of years now, there has also been a European code of conduct regarding disinformation that many online platform services have joined. There are 44 different commitments and 128 specific measures in a number of areas to, among other things, reduce the economic incentives for providers of disinformation and strengthen transparency in political advertising.

Let me also highlight the new EU regulation concerning transparency and targeting regarding political advertising, which aims to make it easier for voters to recognize political advertising, understand who is behind it, and know if they have received a targeted advertisement from a political actor.

To return to what I began the debate with, namely the responsibility that rests on us who are politically active and political actors, I want to mention and emphasize that we in the Moderates as a party have been very clear about how we view anonymous accounts at political parties. Unfortunately, what we have experienced recently is not the first example of this, but in connection with various elections back in time and various parties, there have been examples of this.

In light of the somewhat longer experience of the chaos that anonymous accounts and anonymous posts directed from parties entail, I welcome that we now conduct a discussion on these issues between the parties in the Riksdag. There is a very good tradition in Sweden which means that the basic rules of the game for democracy, including the rules of the game for the political parties, are handled precisely by the parties in the Riksdag. I know that the discussion is conducted in various contexts in the Riksdag, and I welcome that. I hope that the debate we have here today can make an additional contribution to all parties siding with the importance of transparency and openness in the political debate.

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

Anders Ygeman (S)

Madam Speaker! I simply intended to repeat my two questions to the Minister for Justice.

The first one is: What measures does the Minister for Justice intend to take to get to the bottom of the scandal that we have seen? How many fake accounts remain at the largest party in the government constellation?

The second one is: Is the Minister for Justice prepared to legislate against fake accounts, as has been demanded here in the debate?

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

Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)

Madam Speaker! Questions regarding the extent to which the Sweden Democrats also continue to use anonymous accounts should, naturally, primarily be directed to the Sweden Democrats. I have no insight into this, and a government should probably be cautious about seeking insight into how individual political parties choose to conduct their public opinion formation.

For me, it is also an important matter that we have underlined the seriousness of this. The Moderates take the issue seriously, and the Prime Minister has expressed how seriously he views the issue. We welcome that the questions are nurtured according to the democratic tradition we have in Sweden, namely in interaction between the parties here in the Riksdag. There are forums for this.

I may find it difficult to take this type of questions or instructions seriously precisely when they come from the Social Democrats, because the Social Democrats were the party that introduced anonymous accounts in the Swedish political debate; they have been exposed with this not just once but several times. We have always been consistent in our distancing, regardless of whether it is S or other parties that have committed that type of transgression.

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

Anders Ygeman (S)

Madam Speaker! Now Gunnar Strömmer is rambling. He is trying his best not to answer the questions. I shall repeat my questions.

My first question is: What does the Minister for Justice intend to do to get to the bottom of this? The largest party in the government constellation is conducting false influence campaigns. What does the Minister for Justice intend to do? How are voters supposed to tell the difference between a fake account from Putin, from Jimmie Åkesson, or from NMR? How is the Minister for Justice going to guarantee the integrity of the democratic conversation? So far, the announcement from the Sverigedemokraterna has been that they intend to continue with this. All other parties in the Swedish Riksdag distance themselves from this method.

My second question is: Is the Minister for Justice prepared to legislate in order to uphold democratic integrity? In two years, there is an election.

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

Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)

Madam Speaker! No, I am not rambling. I am explaining that there is a background to this issue and that it extends further back than the last few weeks before the EU election. I am old enough – and I believe Anders Ygeman is too – to remember how it was revealed that accounts linked to SSU conducted very serious smear campaigns against Fredrik Reinfeldt before the 2006 election with allegations of pedophilia. There are also examples of other accounts where disinformation has been spread against political opponents from the Social Democrats' office on Sveavägen. It was pathetic then. I think it is just as pathetic when anonymous accounts from other parties appear today. We distance ourselves from this. We did it then, and we do it now.

However, I think we should be careful about directing the power of the executive branch against individual parties. Media scrutiny is good. The debate we have here is good. It is excellent that the parties in the Riksdag interact in the Riksdag to discuss which rules of the game should apply going forward for the Swedish political debate.

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

Samuel Gonzalez Westling (V)

Madam Speaker! My question to Minister of Justice Gunnar Strömmer is similar to the one that was just asked by Anders Ygeman. Just as I mentioned in my speech earlier, we are the people's primary representatives. We have a task to lead by example. At the same time, the government is dependent on support from a party that is much larger than any of the government parties alone. I asked the Prime Minister the question a few weeks ago, and I can ask the same question to the Minister of Justice now: How does the Minister of Justice intend to act to remove all doubt that the government power is not dependent on unauthorized means of influence?

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

Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)

Madam Speaker! The government's power rests on mandates in this Riksdag, which in turn rest on the election result that the Swedish people delivered in the 2022 election.

There is no doubt whatsoever that the public opinion formation conducted by the government's parties and the debate we conduct externally is both open and transparent. It is possible for everyone to demand accountability. Everything we do based on the Tidö Agreement is transparently reported from day one and can be followed in the interaction between the government and the Riksdag, debated here in the chamber, and scrutinized by the media. In that respect, I feel extraordinarily secure. The democratic mandate for this government is unambiguous, and the democratic working methods are crystal clear.

I think the Sweden Democrats' anonymous accounts are a disgrace. I have thought the same thing every time other parties have been exposed with the same thing. This should also be treated in the same way as before.

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

Samuel Gonzalez Westling (V)

Madam Speaker! I am somewhat puzzled by this answer. I have had great respect for both Minister of Justice Gunnar Strömmer and Ulf Kristersson, who have spoken often and for a long time about how the Moderaterna should be the adult in the room and that one should lead by example in these contexts. But despite that, the Moderaterna now choose, with Ulf Kristersson at the helm and with Gunnar Strömmer's good memory, to cooperate with a party that has been revealed to use influence methods that are, according to the EU, inadmissible. Then it also becomes a matter of having to ask whether this government can maintain its credibility. Does Gunnar Strömmer think it is reasonable that government power rests on the type of methods that the Sverigedemokraterna are now employing? Does Gunnar Strömmer stand for that?

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

Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)

Madam Speaker! No, and for that reason we have also taken a very clear distance from anonymous accounts when they have been used by the Sweden Democrats in the same way as we have taken a distance from them when the Left Party's coalition partner, the Social Democrats, engaged in this and furthermore at several elections also revealed with it—what I can remember in any case without the Left Party coming running and saying: Now we want to form a government with the Moderates instead!

The important basis for this government is that the Swedish people in the 2022 election said that they no longer want a government resting on the Left Party's mandate but want a different course for this country, so that we can get the crime under control, push back inflation, get people into work, tackle segregation and strengthen integration. That is the mandate for this government. The next time we will meet in an election campaign is before the 2026 election. Then I am quite convinced that the reward from the citizens will come. The great and important mission for this government is to address the societal problems, and we devote much effort to that every day.

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

Malin Björk (C)

Madam Speaker! Hidden propaganda and hidden influence operations are, as I have pointed out in my speeches, a way to make people believe that they think and achieve something themselves, even though it is someone else who is pulling the strings. It is indeed the anonymous accounts that are the reason for the special debate we have today.

I wonder, first and foremost, if the Minister for Justice can give a clear answer on whether, in the Minister for Justice's opinion, it stands in conflict with the democratic rules of the game to use anonymous accounts. If it does, is it then not reasonable that all parties sign on to these democratic rules of the game? If they do not, should that not have consequences?

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

Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)

Madam Speaker! Thank you once again for the opportunity today to discuss these important issues.

This is actually a question that has two answers. The first is that anonymous accounts in political parties are not something that the voters want to see and not something that we who are active in politics want to see. It is in each person's interest to ensure that it does not occur. That is one thing. That is the important message given today's topic.

One must think carefully about this regarding anonymity in our democracy. Anonymity is also an important value in our democracy. It is so, for example, for those who take very large risks in conveying political messages. We have the secrecy of the ballot. We have the possibility of writing op-eds under a pseudonym and all other things.

I am only saying it because I think those nuances should be included when we are to tackle the issue. But these are not arguments intended to excuse the existence of anonymous accounts operated by political parties.

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

Malin Björk (C)

Madam Speaker! Thank you for the answer, Minister of Justice!

We can agree that there is a need for anonymity for other actors. But the debate is about political parties and political parties' responsibilities.

I wonder again: Is it the Minister for Justice's opinion that it is in conflict with democratic rules of the game for political parties to use anonymous accounts, and should shouldn't everyone sign on to that?

I also heard the Prime Minister in the party leader debate regarding the election to the EU Parliament in May say that he welcomed the proposal to ban anonymous accounts for political parties. He said that it could be an additional directive in the current investigation.

He expressed that it was an excellent proposal. This was in response to a question from the Green Party's spokesperson Amanda Lind. I wonder if the Minister for Justice gives the same answer as the Prime Minister did in the debate on May 22, that it is an excellent proposal that was submitted then.

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

Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)

Madam Speaker! We are truly prepared to discuss how it shall be achieved to find ways to ensure that anonymous accounts at political parties do not occur.

I would personally say that one should indeed be cautious about considering legislation in this area. It is for the simple reason that the type of legislation that targets specific methods when it comes to, for example, political opinion-forming is democratically difficult.

However, I welcome that it is taken up for discussion in the Riksdag in these contexts. There are alternative paths. One can imagine self-regulation or agreements between parties on what rules of the game they want to establish. For those who, for some reason, do not want to agree to that, it will come with a cost in relation to the citizens, to the voters, and other things.

I would like to further discuss within the framework of the Riksdag how we can address the major problem that I believe is posed by political parties that engage in anonymous opinion-forming. Exactly how it should happen is something we will have to return to.

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

Jan Riise (MP)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Minister, for the answers so far! I will certainly return to some of the topics that have already been addressed.

I thought of one thing that the Minister said here: One should be careful about gaining insight into how other parties do things. Then I thought: Isn't that quite important? It is not about gaining insight into it, but seeing how others do things can be quite relevant. It is about taking a stand on whether it is good or bad. Seven out of eight parties in the Riksdag have done it in different ways, including the Moderaterna. It is relevant to continue there.

If I may take it very quickly: Going backwards in the reasoning and talking about things other parties have done throughout history, or during recent years, leads nowhere. We are to look forward from here. Any potential legislation would also affect us others, so to speak.

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

Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)

Madam Speaker! Let me emphasize that historical references are not intended to diminish the seriousness of what we are now discussing and current examples. On the other hand, I can think that the historical perspectives can still be good to include.

It is not a new phenomenon that we are discussing. Other parties have also been caught with their fingers in the jam jars previously, which perhaps could serve as a certain humility when approaching these issues.

There are ongoing parliamentary processes concerning our democracy, the parties' role in democracy, and what rules of the game should apply to the political parties. All eight political parties in the Riksdag are involved in those. I think that is an excellent format for continuing to discuss these important issues.

This is an important aspect. There are also many other important issues that have relevance when it comes to this. Therefore, I think it is good that we have had the opportunity to exchange views in this debate on that subject.

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

Jan Riise (MP)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Minister!

We have talked a lot about anonymity in recent weeks. The Minister mentioned that there are reasons that make it reasonable to be anonymous, for example in letters to the editor or in other contexts.

Now we are talking about the political parties and the parties' representatives. There are somewhat different conditions there, which, for example, KU has pointed out at regular intervals.

I would still like to return to the reasoning regarding some form of regulation, investigation, or legislation on this, with a ban for political parties to use anonymous accounts.

It concerns Amanda Lind's proposal which was mentioned here, and which the Prime Minister responded positively to some months ago. Is that not a way forward beyond it being discussed in the Riksdag, I think?

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

Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)

Madam Speaker! It is very reasonable that we continue to discuss those questions regarding which rules of the game apply and how they should be upheld. There are parliamentary formats that are suitable for that.

As I said initially, there is a democratic tradition in Sweden that has good reasons for itself. Issues concerning the political parties as actors in our democracy are issues that are handled in the Riksdag rather than at the Government Offices.

It is for democratic reasons. There are many historical examples of how the executive power has directed its force against different actors in a democracy, or for that matter even in non-democracies, in a way that is harmful to democracy.

If I may speak for the Moderates, as a party in Sweden's Riksdag, the Moderates want to participate in such a discussion here in the House. It is also here that the questions of legislation are owned, or for that part, other types of self-regulation.

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

Jakob Olofsgård (L)

Madam Speaker! We are doing a lot of good together in the government to protect democracy. We have the Constitutional Commission which we have appointed, among other things, to protect the right to abortion in our constitution, which is something very important.

I wonder if we can also bring this in and do it together in the parliamentary oversight committee that the government has appointed, so that we parliamentarians can take measures together.

It would be an excellent opportunity to jointly ban parties' anonymous communication, or perhaps "false communication" is a more accurate name. Anonymity can be good, but not just when it concerns political parties. It is a matter of ensuring that it does not happen again.

It has happened before. History usually shows that it can happen again. It is about a regulation, a piece of legislation, to ban this. The only way to put a stop to the circus is some kind of ban.

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

Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)

Madam Speaker! The Committee on Inspection is a parliamentary committee where all parties in the Riksdag are represented. It is tasked with handling a number of issues that concern precisely the political parties as actors in our democracy and transparency issues of various kinds. I also know that this issue has been raised within the framework of that committee.

If one looks at how the committee directives that the government has designed, they of course leave room to, especially in a parliamentary context, decide for oneself which neighboring issues should be taken up or can appropriately be discussed there.

I know that the questions have been raised in the committee, and I understand that the questions are being discussed and examined there. I have no specific views of my own on it, but we have kicked off the committee and, in doing so, also handed this over to the parliamentary context and the investigator. We simply have to see what they come up with in their discussion.

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

Jakob Olofsgård (L)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Gunnar Strömmer, for the answer! It is a clear answer regarding a willingness to work forward on this together, and it is very important.

My question to Gunnar Strömmer as a representative for the Moderates as a party is still whether you as a party could imagine clearer legislation and a regulation. We have legislation on how we finance our parties. That is also the case when it comes to communication, and it exists at an EU level. It would therefore be a natural part to also stand behind the proposal that the Liberals have put forward to place this as a regulation in the committee.

My question is therefore more about whether the Moderates as a party stand behind this. That is what I am requesting.

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

Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)

Madam Speaker! The Moderates as a party mean pretty much exactly what I said. These are quite complicated issues that should reasonably be handled in a parliamentary committee context.

If I do not speak for the Moderates as a party and hardly as a representative of the government, but rather as Gunnar Strömmer, I find it very easy to accept the intention of such an initiative.

For those who are truly seriously interested in the question of how to create sustainable rules of the game, I can say that there are many initiated people who reacted very strongly and powerfully negatively to the revelations this spring, but who at the same time problematize, in any case, the practical consequences of the legislation. This concerns, for example, how one should authenticate, what kind of control order this leads to, and other things that can also have their democratic downsides.

I think this: It is easy to buy the intention. How this can be regulated to the extent of adventure is a rather complex issue, and I therefore think that it belongs precisely in a parliamentary context.

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

Anders Ygeman (S)

Madam Speaker! I mentioned in a previous exchange of remarks that I thought Gunnar Strömmer was talking nonsense. I shall try to elaborate on that.

What distinguishes the scandal at Sverigedemokraterna from all the examples that Sverigedemokraterna themselves and Gunnar Strömmer expressed is that, in the case of Sverigedemokraterna, it is sanctioned by the party leadership. It is the very election strategy to use false messages and fake accounts online.

In all the examples that Gunnar Strömmer and others raised regarding parties that have made mistakes, it is the opposite – things that the parties have distanced themselves from. It was an employee at the Moderaterna's office, in the communications department, who called a minister a whore on the internet. The Moderaterna distanced themselves from that. I would never dream of accusing the Moderaterna of standing for such things.

The difference here is that the Sweden Democrats say they are proud of their strategy. When they are caught, they launch violent attacks against free and independent media instead of distancing themselves. That is what makes me think that the Minister for Justice is talking nonsense.

Therefore, my question to the Minister for Justice remains: What measures does the Minister for Justice intend to take to get to the bottom of this? This is likely just the tip of the iceberg. There may be dozens, hundreds, and thousands of additional anonymous accounts being directed from the Sverigedemokraterna party headquarters.

That also makes me ask Mattias Bäckström Johansson: How many additional accounts are there? Do you really intend to continue with this? How many more accounts do you intend to create? Why do you find it so difficult to stand by your own policy, to such an extent that anonymous and fake accounts and anonymous and fake claims are needed?

I distance myself from all the examples of historical injustices that Mattias Bäckström Johansson mentioned. Is Mattias Bäckström Johansson prepared to distance himself from fake accounts?

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

Jakob Olofsgård (L)

Madam Speaker! It seems that you in the opposition are upset that a party has been caught with false communication. It is also us in the Liberals.

Therefore, my question to Anders Ygeman as a representative for the Socialdemokraterna is: Are you prepared to stand behind the proposal for a regulation, a piece of legislation, in the oversight committee that is now operating parliamentarily? Can you give a statement here in the chamber today? The only way to put a stop to this circus is a ban and a regulation.

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

Anders Ygeman (S)

Madam Speaker! I share Jakob Olofsgård's view that we need to tighten the legislation in this area. We cannot have an order where parties elected to Sweden's Riksdag spread false messages with false senders.

Exactly what this legislation should look like, we are probably not at the point of yet, and if the path is to go via the transparency committee, we are probably not at that point either. But that sharper legislation against fake accounts and false political marketing is needed beyond all doubt.

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

Jakob Olofsgård (L)

Madam Speaker! It is pleasing to hear that it concerns legislation in some form. Then, of course, the experts may take a closer look at it.

Anders Ygeman called for measures from the government in a previous post in this case. I wonder a little: What own measures and what own ideas have the Social Democrats themselves come up with during the spring and in the election campaign?

We in the Liberals have pushed for a code of honor, which the Social Democrats were not willing to sign. We have also pushed for legislation in the sitting committee. Something is underway, and there are concrete proposals here and now.

What measures and ideas do the Social Democrats promote?

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

Anders Ygeman (S)

Madam Speaker! I believe we have presented ten different proposals to address this. We think that the government should have called for a party leader meeting on this – it is that serious. I also think that the National Security Council could have been used.

When you have parties in Sweden's Riksdag that engage in this type of narrative and this type of anonymous accounts, it plays into the hands of the other actors who drive this type of narrative and use anonymous accounts. One simply facilitates for the forces that want to harm Swedish society to do so and undermines trust in the democratic system.

That is why I and the Social Democrats believe that the government must also take measures to get to the bottom of the extent of the Sweden Democrats' anonymous accounts. It is not enough to just move on and pretend as if nothing has happened. The voters deserve to be informed.

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

Mattias Bäckström Johansson (SD)

Madam Speaker! Our constitution in Sweden guarantees citizens rights against the state regarding freedom of expression, which enjoys a strong position.

But as an ever-increasing part of our presence takes place in digital environments and on social media, a larger part of the political debate and conversations also take place there. Our presence there is protected in the same way by our legislation regarding hate and threats, but our freedom of expression is instead owned by private companies that primarily respond to commercial interests.

This has resulted in a problem where accounts are shut down as a consequence of mass reports from political opponents, which all as a rule lack substantive grounds.

The accounts that are stated as anonymous accounts in the debate have, for example, names such as sdtobbe, ludvigaspling, SDregeringen, jimmiemoments and sverjedemokraterna - names from which one can reasonably assume where the home base is located. The context is that the Sverigedemokraterna over the years have had to handle mass reports from political opponents which have led to shutdowns and other restrictions on social media, something that is probably also the reason why all parties to and from have operated in various forms of gray zones.

Parallel to this, the Sweden Democrats have submitted proposals here in the chamber to strengthen freedom of speech on the internet based on the unreasonable nature of a few gigantic tech companies being able to own it, something that we have unfortunately been quite alone in.

We therefore welcome that the debate is getting underway, and we from the Sverigedemokraterna will, of course, be a constructive force in that work to strengthen our democracy and secure our freedom of speech even in digital contexts.

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

Anders Ygeman (S)

Madam Speaker! It is almost a bit parodic. Mattias Bäckström Johansson stands here in the speaker's chair and claims that there were no anonymous accounts. The same party secretary then says that it is important that the Sverigedemokraterna should be allowed to have anonymous accounts and sail under a false flag. Furthermore, it is the case that several of the operators that Mattias Bäckström Johansson tells about here in the chamber have removed these accounts because the accounts were anonymous.

My question to Mattias Bäckström Johansson remains: When will the Sweden Democrats report the total extent of the anonymous accounts, and are you prepared to cease using them?

I will also ask the same question as I asked the Minister for Justice: Are you prepared to support legislation against anonymous accounts?

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

Mattias Bäckström Johansson (SD)

Madam Speaker! Speaking of parodically: in the election campaign, the Social Democrats themselves were rather stressed, as they conducted a corresponding activity and, during the ongoing election campaign, were forced to change the side descriptions for the accounts they manage in the wholly-owned subsidiary with Aktuellt i politiken.

Regarding the accounts, the scope is known. The whole matter is perhaps not facilitated by the Social Democrats and Anders Ygeman taking it upon themselves to spread misleading information in order to increase polarization in a debate that perhaps deserves a more in-depth discussion. We do not, therefore, have more accounts, and we do not intend to open any such accounts here and now.

I can note that the accounts that were previously defined as anonymous are closed down when they are no longer such. There is a problem to work with regarding freedom of speech. Instead of driving the polarization with allegations of hate, threats, and disinformation, I would welcome the member to highlight some examples of what has been spread that falls within the scope of this.

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

Anders Ygeman (S)

Madam Speaker! That hate and threats are spread via anonymous accounts can come as no surprise to anyone other than Mattias Bäckström Johansson.

A clarification because the haze is quite thick when Mattias Bäckström Johansson speaks: Does Mattias Bäckström Johansson mean that there are no more anonymous accounts directed by the Sverigedemokraterna than those revealed by TV4? Have they managed to reveal every single anonymous account?

Mattias Bäckström Johansson is nevertheless the party secretary, the highest organizational responsible person for Sverigedemokraterna, and it becomes especially important to ask that question because none of these anonymous accounts were acknowledged by Sverigedemokraterna before the audit. Before the audit, there was not a single anonymous account, according to Sverigedemokraterna. They did not conduct this activity.

In its investigation, TV4 has therefore managed to reveal every single anonymous account! That, Mattias Bäckström Johansson, must be an impressive journalistic feat.

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

Mattias Bäckström Johansson (SD)

Madam Speaker! Yes, that may be the consequence of having someone working in the communications department for an entire year. I haven't even set foot there for such a long period in total myself.

I note that Anders Ygeman has had the opportunity in both his first and second speeches as well as in his rejoinders without being able to demonstrate anything connected to hate, threats, or disinformation. He is, however, very enthusiastic about fueling the polarized debate instead of diving deep into it in substance and perhaps actually discussing the democratic concerns connected to the reasons why one has landed here. The Social Democrats also have something to reflect on regarding this, since they themselves conduct a corresponding activity in their wholly-owned subsidiary and during the election campaign were in a great hurry to change the side descriptions.

Perhaps a little more honesty is required if we are to be able to have a discussion on how we are to deal with this. I look forward to that discussion, Madam Speaker.

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

Samuel Gonzalez Westling (V)

Madam Speaker! I have a very simple question for Mattias Bäckström Johansson and the Sverigedemokraterna: Do you think it is a problem that parties use anonymous methods of influence?

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

Mattias Bäckström Johansson (SD)

Madam Speaker! It is clear that it is desirable to be able to express one's opinion and stand by it. In that regard, we have had the concern that we have not been allowed to have accounts. People have been subjected to accounts being shut down or to not being able to convey messages, which is indeed the background to the situation we have ended up in.

The Sweden Democrats gladly agree that we could land on a path forward where we strengthen freedom of speech and remove the incentive structures that exist for what we have seen. We also truly share the starting point that we must find a way to get away from this.

In those conversations, the Sweden Democrats would like to be involved and be a constructive force, precisely in order to strengthen the conditions for long-term sustainable rules of the game so that there is no need for such things either.

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

Samuel Gonzalez Westling (V)

Madam Speaker! I interpret the answer as that the Sweden Democrats, as long as there is no kind of legislation or anything else in place at any level, or that the state controls the media companies, will think it is right and reasonable to anonymously use what the EU describes as prohibited influence methods on social media and elsewhere.

So that is the Sverigedemokraternas official position. Have I understood that correctly?

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

Mattias Bäckström Johansson (SD)

Madam Speaker! That the state controls the media companies is not our wish, but will likely more often come from elsewhere. The situation is unfortunately such that we should reduce state ownership today.

No, it is not ultimately just about legislation. We can, for example, work on developing agreements and rules of engagement between the parties, something that has not been done in a corresponding way in other countries. We can work with the legislation so that one cannot as easily and immediately be able to shut down politicians or parties from social media and in that way limit their opportunity for political communication, something which, properly or improperly, affects the outcome of Swedish elections. There we should look at how we can legislate on more parts and what we can agree on between the parties.

That work welcomes the Sweden Democrats, and there is much to do. Unfortunately, we have a very long experience of working uphill when it comes to this, which is the background to why other paths have also been sought for it. We would therefore welcome that one actually sits down and deeply discusses these issues to find a way forward.

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

Malin Björk (C)

Madam Speaker! I have a similar question as Samuel Gonzalez Westling had.

I have demonstrated in my speeches how anonymous accounts and hidden influence campaigns have been used throughout history to mislead the population by not being clear about who is pulling the strings, and I have previously heard Mattias Bäckström Johansson state that the Sverigedemokraterna intend to continue with such anonymous accounts.

My question is therefore: Regardless of whether one knows that this is a method used by rogue states and by Putin and Lenin, is it the Sweden Democrats' view that one will continue with this?

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

Mattias Bäckström Johansson (SD)

Madam Speaker! I have been very clear in the debate - and it has also been the core message - that we have been exposed to problems in engaging in political recruitment in the physical environment and also in the digital environment. This has led to the situation we find ourselves in today. We are more than willing to participate and work to move away from these problems through legislation and agreements.

The problem is, well, the reluctance to discuss the root causes. Not least, the request for debate from Centerpartiet implies that information that is factually incorrect, which is misleading, has emerged, and one raises the issue of hate, threats, and disinformation.

Madam Speaker! I think it is up to the member to give examples of what constitutes hate, threats or disinformation and what is so important that they must be discussed in the chamber.

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

Malin Björk (C)

Madam Speaker! I thank party secretary Mattias Bäckström Johansson for the answer.

This debate has been convened to talk about inadmissible influence campaigns and the democratic rules of the game. That is what I have stuck to and what I have focused on.

It becomes a bit strange; sometimes it feels like I am back in the courtroom, sitting as the prosecutor and having a defense counsel opposite me who constantly shifts the focus instead of answering the questions being asked. Instead, they mix up the cards and talk about completely different issues.

I am speaking about prohibited influence campaigns and about hidden influence campaigns. It has been my topic for the debate from the beginning until now. My recurring question concerns the fact that this approach is obviously used by those states that want to undermine the democratic order. Will the Sverigedemokraterna continue with it?

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

Mattias Bäckström Johansson (SD)

Madam Speaker! It is about answers to questions that are asked. I asked a simple question about what are the reasons, which have been stated in writing, for the debate. One cannot state a single reason for what is there. It is distressing that this debate contributes to increased polarization, to spreading information that is not correct, in order to avoid the debate that should be held.

It is considered clear that the Sweden Democrats – which we have not done – have engaged in prohibited campaign methods. But there is a logic behind how we have actually worked on social media, against the background of the fact that freedom of speech is not protected or regulated. We have had problems with accounts being shut down and mass reporting from political opponents, which has created that type of need. We welcome a debate on how we can address this. We would gladly see legislation regarding precisely freedom of speech towards the tech companies and also enter into agreements between the parties to collectively agree on the rules of the game that should prevail.

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

Jan Riise (MP)

Madam Speaker! I thank you for the answers so far.

Mattias Bäckström Johansson has asked for evidence of what has happened. It must be established beyond all doubt, but as far as I remember, the first thing that happened when things came out was that I and everyone else on my side of the opposition were called "parasites" (klägg). I can think that is unpleasant in itself. It is an underestimation or a lack of recognition of our role in the context.

I wonder if the member can provide an answer on the context. If it is the case that all accounts are closed, there are obviously thousands more. They are the ones who answer me when I write on X and call me an idiot. They often live in these contexts and refer to SD at regular intervals.

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

Mattias Bäckström Johansson (SD)

Madam Speaker! It is good that the member precedes the question about examples when one has no example of what it is one actually wants to discuss - the background.

Once again, this type of misleading information is being presented; it is not bot accounts entering the comment fields, but rather it concerns pages where posts are published. It is connected to this reluctance to actually understand what has happened, and there are no forms of hate, threats, or disinformation. The debate does not improve if one does not want to discuss what is there, does not want to contribute to a constructive way forward, but instead focuses more on increasing polarization and spreading that type of debate.

The Sweden Democrats will, as I have said before, be a constructive force in working to strengthen these parts and remove the incentives that exist and, in the first instance, see legislation and agreements between the parties.

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

Jan Riise (MP)

Madam Speaker! I am still concerned about the context in which the previous, now removed, anonymous accounts exist. They are accompanied by a very large number of accounts with anonymous names and pictures, and they do not engage in any kind of discussion at all. There are no possibilities to respond to those posts.

This results in me and many others who are working a bit on the side starting to wonder whether one should really write a post. Yes or no? I don't know.

This is troublesome. I would like to return to the following question. Does Mattias Bäckström Johansson realize that your anonymous accounts - we do not know how many there are - affect a large group of other accounts?

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

Mattias Bäckström Johansson (SD)

Madam Speaker! Of course, hate and threats are distressing, and we democratic parties in the Swedish Riksdag must do everything we can together to work against this. My party, and I, the undersigned, have experienced a great deal in the form of physical violence as well as hate and threats on social media in many different contexts. We are the first to stand up for that no representative of a party or anyone who expresses a political opinion in Sweden should be subjected to this at all.

But it becomes equally troublesome when one does not want to conduct a more honest debate and discussion about this. There is a gray area in which all parties have operated. Not least, the Social Democrats had a corresponding type of accounts, but they were in a subsidiary - and then it would be okay.

We welcome a discussion on how we can proceed broadly with agreements between the parties in the Riksdag and also with legislation in the area to strengthen freedom of expression and work against hate and threats.

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

Jakob Olofsgård (L)

Madam Speaker! We have had conversations in the party secretariat, Mattias Bäckström Johansson, where the Sweden Democrats have apologized. I have instead two other questions that I want to raise. I will start with the first one.

Why can't you stand by your policy? You were clear that you do not intend to shut down anonymous pages or accounts right now. We Liberals are not out to review what is humor or satire - that is not what this is about - but why can it not clearly and explicitly appear who the sender is?

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

Mattias Bäckström Johansson (SD)

Madam Speaker! There have been good conversations on these issues, and they have been more honest regarding what they are about. Together with the Tidö parties, we agree in substance that it has not been a matter of hate, threats, and disinformation on these sides, but it has been more of the genre of satire. There have also been a number of posts that hit the respect clause found in the agreement. It is also important to stand up for that, but the posts have not contributed to increasing polarization.

We wish it had looked different. We believe that we can find constructive ways forward after what has been, with a more profound and honest debate. We can find ways for legislation and also the type of agreements that, among others, the Liberal Party have raised and wanted to do in a Swedish format, that is, more discussions within the framework of the party secretariats.

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

Jakob Olofsgård (L)

Madam Speaker! Then my last question becomes quite natural – we concluded with just this.

Are the Sweden Democrats prepared to stand behind a general ban on parties' anonymous communication in various ways? It is the only way to together, also in the future, prevent all parties from engaging in communication where they do not stand by what they say.

This is a circus, and there must be a ban, legislation, and a regulation according to the proposal that we in the Liberals have submitted in the transparency committee that is currently sitting. Is this something that the Sverigedemokraterna can say they stand behind?

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

Mattias Bäckström Johansson (SD)

Madam Speaker! We are, of course, prepared to look at all proposals in this area in order to be able to find a path forward that is as broad as possible.

Not least the Minister for Justice mentioned here in the debate parts where it can be problematic with legislation and where perhaps more of an agreement is needed instead. Some can affect the parties, but there are also side organizations to the parties that are affected. The question is how far-reaching it should be, and there is much to look at.

Of course, we are prepared to look at these issues broadly, but we also mean that it must be linked to the absurdity of a few gigantic tech companies owning freedom of expression on platforms where citizens, even in this country, are increasingly present and where political conversations take place. It is completely unreasonable that it should be the commercial interests that rule, and we should consider legislation there as other European countries have now done.

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

Samuel Gonzalez Westling (V)

Madam Speaker! I believe it is important that we clarify what it is we are actually talking about here. No one questions the right of a citizen in Sweden, or anyone at all, to express their opinions.

What this debate is about is whether political parties should be allowed to conduct anonymous influence campaigns, that is, to push the political public debate under cover without truly standing behind it.

It is quite paradoxical that we have representatives for both the government and the Riksdag who often and gladly speak about how important it is to have good and healthy values but who at the same time, in action, do the exact opposite.

One such example is how the Sverigedemokraterna during the 2022 election campaign expressed deep outrage over the influence campaigns where the social services were accused of kidnapping children. Now it is being revealed that the same party itself has a finger in it or at least has had thoughts about it. In that case, it is obvious that it was merely a performance for the gallery.

The other government parties have, through their passivity regarding this, made it clear that for them it is more important to hold power than to actually make any sensible difference with it. Out of fear of losing the Sweden Democrats' support, one lets them stay, even though one knows that the only reasonable thing is to cut all ties even if it were to mean losing government power.

As Astrid Lindgren had Jonatan Lionheart say: There are things one must do, otherwise one is just a little scoundrel.

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

Jakob Olofsgård (L)

Madam Speaker! Thank you to Samuel Gonzalez Westling for the speech!

Yes, you are just a little scumbag if you don't do anything at all, if you don't come up with any constructive proposals to solve and address this.

It is important to show that one is upset about this issue with anonymous communication. I am too. Therefore, I ask the member as a representative for Vänsterpartiet if you are prepared to stand behind the proposal that the Liberalerna have now put forward, a constructive proposal in the transparency committee to somehow achieve a ban on fake accounts and anonymous accounts through legislation and regulation.

What do you in Vänsterpartiet have to say to put a stop to this circus?

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

Samuel Gonzalez Westling (V)

Madam Speaker! We are, of course, open to investigating all these issues, to review them and look at what is the most appropriate thing to do in light of what has occurred.

But I still believe that the most important and primary responsibility that each of us has is to examine ourselves and see what it is we ourselves can do. What are we prepared to accept?

I believe that the Liberals have quite a lot to answer for there. I remember that during the election campaign, the Liberals promised that they would be the liberal watchdog against the Sweden Democrats. What has been the result of that?

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

Jakob Olofsgård (L)

Madam Speaker! Thank you to the member for the answer!

Personal responsibility always comes first. I agree with the member on that. We need to take personal responsibility in our parties and keep it clean in front of our own door. That is most important of all.

But when this does not work and when one does not take this responsibility, and we look back in history that it has happened, we need to prevent history from repeating itself. We do that by regulating this and steering it in different ways.

During the election campaign during the spring, no proposals came from Vänsterpartiet regarding in what ways we should constructively deal with the fact that people do not take their own responsibility.

That is why this committee is perfectly suited to address this and now.

I nevertheless view the answer given by the member as positive. But constructive proposals are more important than shouting loudly.

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

Samuel Gonzalez Westling (V)

Madam Speaker! I actually believe it is like this: It is important that one takes a stand, a clear stand, against xenophobia and racism.

It is probably what the Left Party is best at. We have done it throughout all these years. I can remember as far back as when I was ten years old and saw the Nazis running around on the street together with the Sweden Democrats and how my friends and I distanced ourselves from them. It is something that I carry with me even today.

I could never ever imagine legitimizing such a party. But I believe that is where the main responsibility lies, and I believe that is where the shoe pinches for the Liberals. But take off your shoe! You are completely free to distance yourselves from the Sverigedemokraterna, leave the government cooperation, and stand on the right side of history again.

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

Malin Björk (C)

Madam Speaker! Accountability. It is a fine word, I think, and a word that obliges.

In my previous work as a prosecutor, I took a number of decisions under my personal official responsibility. I also held many perpetrators accountable for their actions. It is a responsibility that I carry with me into the work in this chamber and which I cherish and safeguard.

Taking responsibility is not about hiding one's opinions and one's attempts to influence public opinion through anonymity. That is something the Sweden Democrats do and say the party will continue to do, as we have heard.

Taking responsibility also does not mean turning a blind eye when comrades in the Tidö government act in defiance of fundamental democratic rules of the game.

This government has often wanted to present itself as decisive. But in this area and after the revelations in Kalla fakta, I can see nothing other than paralysis.

We in the Center Party have taken several initiatives in connection with the Kalla fakta program. We have taken the initiative for this special debate. We have submitted initiatives in committees to investigate how party funding is used to ensure that it does not go towards anything that undermines the democratic order. We have also, together with the Green Party, submitted proposals in the Committee on the Constitution to review a ban for parties to have anonymous accounts.

What initiatives has the government taken? I hear Gunnar Strömmer talking about democratic dialogue in this chamber, but that is not enough when we hear a party say that they will continue with this. If one does not act according to the democratic rules of the game, it must have consequences.

Andreas Norlén stood here on Wednesday and spoke about the importance of following the democratic rules of the game. I want to say once again that I think it is important that we all adhere to them.

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

Jakob Olofsgård (L)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Malin Björk, for the speech! It is very good and important to carry with you the historical perspective - to have the rearview mirror with you to see forward. It is forward we now need to see, together.

It is one thing to submit a committee initiative and call for a debate, which we welcome here today - that the debate is held. It is important to have a high ceiling and a democratic order.

But when it comes to the constructive proposals, I do not quite agree that the government is doing nothing. The government has now appointed a parliamentary committee; this is something that the government has done. In that committee, the Liberals have put forward a proposal to ban anonymous communication through legislation.

The government is therefore acting by appointing a parliamentary committee, where our parties are involved and there is an opportunity to legislate. What is the Center Party's position on such legislation in some form?

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

Malin Björk (C)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Jakob Olofsgård, for the question! The committee that Jakob Olofsgård is talking about is important. We naturally think it is welcome if the question of anonymous accounts could be taken up within the framework of that investigation. I have received reports that our representative has also stood behind that proposal when the Liberals have presented it.

I see, however, the problem rather as that, as I have understood it, a supplementary directive from the government was needed in order to be able to raise the specific issue of anonymous accounts. The work in the investigation mentioned here has been ongoing for some time. That investigation was not initiated on account of Kalla fakta's program and the debate we are having today, but it is other things that form the basis for that assignment.

So, a supplementary directive is needed, therefore I pose the question back to Jakob Olofsgård: What is happening from the government's side regarding a supplementary directive? What are the Liberals doing to influence the government so that the directive is submitted?

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

Jakob Olofsgård (L)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Malin Björk, for the answer! It is positive that you in Centerpartiet stand behind an initiative to proceed with this in the parliamentary commission and see if we can find ways forward.

Now this is on the table with the parliamentary committee. It is now up to them to say if this is something that can be accommodated within the existing mandate. The committee can do this itself, and at a coming meeting it will become clear whether that is the case or not. If the committee does not judge that this is accommodated, we in the Liberals are, of course, for an additional directive to the committee.

But first and foremost, there are, as we in the Liberals would still like to say, good opportunities to fit this within the framework of the committee - to be constructive and move forward with this proposal. I hope that the Centre Party also shares this view - that this can be handled even if it does not have to lead to a supplementary directive.

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

Malin Björk (C)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Jakob Olofsgård, for both the questions and the answers! We are absolutely open, whether it happens through a supplementary directive within the scope of this investigation or within the scope of the directive that already exists, so that this is investigated and we come up with something that ensures this is stopped in the future. We cannot have a context where we allow certain parties here in the Riksdag to act based on rules of the game that, in my opinion, are not democratic.

I received reports that this will not fit within the directive that already exists and that a supplementary directive is therefore needed. I expect the Liberals to act forcefully moving forward, given both what Jakob Olofsgård says here and how the Liberals have expressed themselves previously, so that this issue is not buried because it would be uncomfortable for the government to handle.

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

Christian Carlsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! Let me say a few more words about the trust in our democracy and the party system. It is often said that honesty lasts the longest, and I am fully convinced that with honest politicians, democracy lasts the longest. Sweden therefore needs more politicians who are prepared to stand up for what they think even when it is uncomfortable and who dare to tell the truth, speak plainly and describe reality as it is.

We need more politicians who are prepared to engage in a straight and honest debate where there are lines of division, and fewer who, by blackening others and providing untruths about others' policies, pretend that there are conflicts that do not exist.

In conclusion, we also need politicians who create realistic expectations of which problems politics can and should solve, who are honest about what is assessed to need to be done, even if it hurts to hear, and who tackle the truly major societal problems.

In a democratic welfare state where everything is promised to everyone instead, the public commitment quickly becomes overwhelming. The state cannot fulfill its tasks, and the frustration among ordinary people will grow. Division will spread and contradictions will arise where group is pitted against group.

If this is not broken in time and politics fails to prioritize, trust in democracy will be damaged, and the risk is that people will begin to demand something else. We therefore need fewer politicians who appeal to people's self-interest in the short term and more value-driven politicians who are driven by what is right, look at the whole of society and work for the common good.

So we build serious trust for one another in society, and so we build serious trust for democracy and the party system.

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

Anders Ygeman (S)

Madam Speaker! I would like to ask a question to Christian Carlsson. The Sweden Democrats claimed until May 7 this year that there was not a single anonymous account, no hate, no disinformation, and no threats. Then it has emerged in TV4's investigation that there has been extensive such activity which was directed by the party's communications department. First, one had nothing to be ashamed of. Now, they have taken down the accounts. Mattias Bäckström Johansson said in today's debate that this was unfortunate.

Now there is suddenly not a single anonymous account again, except for those that TV4 reviewed. And this was apparently due to TV4 having been more in the communications department than the party secretary has been.

My question to Christian Carlsson is quite simply: Does Christian Carlsson also believe that all anonymous accounts at Sverigedemokraterna are now revealed and that there is not a single account left there?

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

Christian Carlsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! That question must naturally be answered by the Sweden Democrats; I cannot speculate on that.

From the Christian Democrats' side, we have been very clear in our criticism of the Sweden Democrats. We do not think that political parties should be prepared to use anonymous accounts as a cover to be able to spread communication that one does not want to be associated with. We also think it is wrong when parties use decoy setups to be able to communicate about others in a derogatory and offensive way with an unclear sender without being associated with this.

We want to see an agreement between the parties in the Riksdag to address both of these phenomena. Are the Social Democrats also prepared to stand behind such an agreement?

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

Anders Ygeman (S)

Madam Speaker! I am absolutely convinced that if the Christian Democrats want, it is possible to find ways forward to tighten the legislation in this area.

But the fact is that if Christian Carlsson believes what the Sverigedemokraterna put forward in the debate – that there are no more anonymous accounts – only Christian Carlsson can answer that. The Sverigedemokraterna cannot answer that. If Christian Carlsson is not convinced that every anonymous account has been uncovered, my question to Christian Carlsson is: Are you prepared to take measures to get to the bottom of this, so that we can actually be sure that there are no more accounts spreading hate and threats or disinformation about the Kristdemokraterna's candidates?

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

Christian Carlsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! What I believe is not relevant. It is what we know that we can hold ourselves to, and I do not know how many anonymous accounts there are at the Sweden Democrats or at other parties. Every party must take responsibility for its own.

The Christian Democrats believe that we have a shared responsibility to address this issue. It is also why we have issued a very clear statement that we want to see an agreement between the Sweden Democrats, the Social Democrats, and all other parties that political parties shall not have anonymous accounts. The political parties' communication shall be marked with a clear sender. That is what the Christian Democrats stand for.

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

Samuel Gonzalez Westling (V)

Madam Speaker! I still interpret Mattias Bäckström Johansson's answer to me earlier as that they probably intended to continue with anonymous influence methods and anonymous accounts until there is legislation or until companies ban their accounts. It is quite obvious that they intend to continue with this.

Here we hear that the Christian Democrats do not think this is a good method. Can we then also get a statement on how this fits together and if one intends to continue the government cooperation with the Sweden Democrats despite the fact that the Sweden Democrats have said that they are prepared to continue with their anonymous accounts?

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

Christian Carlsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! The Christian Democrats do not think that any party should continue to use anonymous accounts to be able to stand for something other than what one wants to be associated with as a party. It is very clear. We want an agreement between the political parties to resolve this. If this does not work, we are prepared to discuss legislation.

There are many different proposals for legislation that are now being discussed. Many of them involve a clear problem. The best thing would be if we in all parties could agree that this is a dishonest method that we should not use. It is our starting point that we should be able to reach such an agreement.

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

Samuel Gonzalez Westling (V)

Madam Speaker! I still think it is a very strange way of reasoning. It sounds as if one means that the only way to resolve this is for all parties to reach an agreement. Are the Christian Democrats not in a government cooperation with the Moderates, the Liberals and the Sweden Democrats? Is there not the possibility for the Christian Democrats, towards their partner parties, to push this issue?

We do not think that one should use these types of methods. Is it required that the other parties are on board with it? I am not saying that they wouldn't be on board with it, but I still think that it should be fully possible for the Christian Democrats, who claim to be an ethical and moral party, to drive this issue in the Tidö Agreement. I mean, therefore, that the Christian Democrats should say that they do not want to deal with this. Is this not a reasonable expectation of the Christian Democrats?

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

Christian Carlsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! It is a reasonable expectation. It is also why we, in the conversations that have been held, have been clear that we want an agreement that the political parties shall not use anonymous accounts to convey messages that they otherwise do not want to be associated with. Our starting point is that we should be able to find an agreement that applies to all parties. If this is not possible, we must look at the possibility of legislation, but we are not there yet, and first and foremost we want to resolve this through an agreement between the political parties.

We have been clear in marking against what we think SD has done wrong. We have been clear in marking against what we think the Social Democrats are doing wrong. But the policy that is to prevail in the country is not something we are prepared to reconsider, and the Tidö agreement will continue. In order to win confidence for democracy and the party system, the policy must manage to solve the truly large societal problems.

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

Jakob Olofsgård (L)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Christian Carlsson, for your speech! We are doing, as said, very much good together in our government. The constitutional commission, I have mentioned earlier. There we are now ensuring that we legislate so that the right to abortion is included in the constitution, for example. But what we are talking about now is another such thing where we can move forward together.

It is pleasing to hear that you take a positive stance toward finding a way forward to tackle this. Exactly how it will proceed, we shall have to see in the future.

We in the Liberals want to present a sharp proposal to raise this in the parliamentary oversight committee. My question to Christian Carlsson is then: What is the position of the Christian Democrats regarding this issue being accommodated in a committee in this manner?

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

Christian Carlsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! As I have said before, the Christian Democrats primarily want that we in the political parties in the Riksdag should be able to reach an agreement in unity on which rules of the game shall apply. If this is not possible, one must look at other alternatives. Legislation can be a possibility, as I mentioned earlier.

Then there is some disagreement regarding which path one wants to take. We do not believe that the right way is to do as the Social Democrats have been suggesting, to completely ban the existence of anonymous accounts. We think the issue is complex.

Freedom of speech requires that ordinary citizens be able to remain anonymous. People have been able to write political pamphlets under a pseudonym for many hundreds of years. There we need to be careful. We are more open to discussing the path that the Liberals have proposed, and it may very well take place within the framework of the committee that is currently working.

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

Jakob Olofsgård (L)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Christian Carlsson, for a very good answer! We have a common path forward even in this issue. It is very positive.

An agreement is indeed the best way, but we have clear messages from the Sverigedemokraterna that they do not intend to close their false accounts. When there is such clarity, there is no easy path to take to reach an agreement.

From the Liberals' side, we have been clear during the election campaign that the accounts must be closed. But this is not being done. Then we reach no agreement. Then it ultimately becomes a question of regulation and legislation. I hope that we can move forward in that way in good cooperation also with the Christian Democrats, who hold the banner very high in terms of values, and that I welcome.

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

Christian Carlsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! We want to continue to try the path of an agreement between the parties. It is wrong when SD has used these anonymous accounts as a cover. We have pointed that out. But it is also wrong when the Social Democrats use straw man tactics and use their wholly-owned companies to smear political opponents and lie about their policies. It is possible that we can address that part as well in a political agreement or through legislation. Then perhaps the Sweden Democrats will be more open to discussion. We therefore want to continue to try the path of an agreement. Otherwise, we look forward to continued discussions on legislation.

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

Jan Riise (MP)

Madam Speaker! It is not so difficult to find representatives in the debate who want to prevent the use of anonymous posts and lies in the election campaign. Seven out of eight parties stand clearly for this. This alone should be enough for us to be able to move forward in this context. And that is without counting the usual differences. That we see things in different ways is part of the very idea. It is reasonably completely okay.

But we must, of course, be completely in agreement that we shall have neither anonymous funding nor anonymous messages. Our political messages shall, of course, have recipients, but at least as importantly, there must be a clear sender. TV4 scratched a bit at the surface and found a hornet's nest of different accounts and statements dedicated to mudslinging and lies, all completely anonymous.

But this debate also has a heading that concerns how democracy and the parties' trust can be strengthened and maintained. I would like to devote a few seconds to that. I realize, of course, that it actually requires months and years, but it is also extremely important.

Democracy is under threat in many countries. The parties have an unambiguous responsibility. Possibly the Sweden Democrats have an extra large responsibility because it is unambiguous that the reasoning of recent times has damaged both Sweden and democracy in an unacceptable way.

It is important that we move forward here. Even though the Riksdag is an important forum for conducting these types of discussions, for example in committees and inquiries, we cannot rule out that the government's role may also come to be important. We must get to the bottom of this.

We are not at all served by this kind of communication moving forward. That we get to the bottom of this does not only make our world less toxic. It is also what Sweden's voters are entitled to, I think.

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

Jakob Olofsgård (L)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Jan Riise, for your clear presentation of the Green Party's position on the issue! The opposition is upset about this. But, once again, it will take more than upsetness or fine words for one to be able to move forward constructively.

It is a good approach in the committee initiative that you in Miljöpartiet have mentioned here. But the fastest and clearest way to proceed is in the parliamentary oversight committee. It is about whether it can really be seen if this can be found within that framework. If it cannot, it can of course be discussed as a supplementary directive. But a parliamentary committee can itself contain this.

Can you give a statement here in the chamber today? Can you in Miljöpartiet do everything in your power to get this included in the parliamentary committee, so that the circus can come to an end?

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

Jan Riise (MP)

Madam Speaker! I agree with my colleague Malin Björk. What we have discussed in the Committee on the Constitution is a committee initiative with the aim of leading to precisely supplementary directives for the transparency investigation.

I can see nothing other than that if it is answered already before we are there, we have achieved this. As I see it, it is the same thing we are talking about here. If it can be solved without a committee initiative, that is fine. If it cannot, if the discussion in some way gets stuck in the Committee on Inspection of Government Activities, we have a committee initiative in KU. There, we would naturally be served by support from the Liberals to get this to become a reality.

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

Jakob Olofsgård (L)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Jan Riise, for the clear answer! You want to work for this as far as possible in the sitting committee. I welcome that. That is the path that lies closest ahead. Then we can start talking about committee initiatives. It feels strange to start the other way around. But it remains to be seen what the committee lands on at the next meeting.

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

Jan Riise (MP)

Madam Speaker! Yes, it is reasonable that it proceeds in that way. First, we see if anything comes of the initiative in the oversight committee. If it does not, a committee initiative can be submitted if L is prepared to stand on our side in that context; naturally, also gladly other parties.

If it were to come to a halt even there, we will have to settle down and continue reasoning about how we can move forward – whether it is in the form of discussions in the Riksdag or if this can in some way lead to initiatives that ultimately concern legislation.

Just as many here have said, we must get to the bottom of this and put a stop to this kind of communication and discussion. We are neither servants of nor worthy of this.

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

TREDJE VICE TALMANNEN

Despite the fact that the debate is about to be concluded, I must remind all members that even in a special debate, everyone speaks through the Speaker, which means that "you" and "you" (du and dig) are not used in the exchanges of remarks.

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

Jakob Olofsgård (L)

Madam Speaker! The Liberals have always protected democracy - from the struggle for equal and universal suffrage in the beginning of the 1900s to the introduction of civil rights in the Instrument of Government at the end of the 70s.

The government has now, together with the Liberals, initiated work to, among other things, provide constitutional protection for the right to abortion. It will be the largest expansion of our rights since the 90s. It has occurred in cooperation over these years with different parties, in fact all parties in the Riksdag. But the common denominator for more or less all democratic reforms is the Liberals.

To safeguard democracy, we must constantly update the rules of the game in step with the changes occurring in society. Before the emergence of social media, it was unusual for political parties to communicate anonymously. Now it has become more common. It is time for a new democracy reform.

Today the focus is on the recent revelations, but here it is required that we take a step back and consider whether it is desirable for parties to spread their messages anonymously. We in Liberalerna say no and want to ban parties' anonymous communication.

What we are now proposing is a clear reaction to how the public conversation can be hijacked by those who should be democracy's foremost defenders, namely we politicians. Our voters deserve serious politicians who inspire respect and who show respect for their political opponents. Our voters deserve politicians who do not fight for their ideas with contempt and manipulations but with passion, enthusiasm and honesty.

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

Samuel Gonzalez Westling (V)

Madam Speaker! I can only agree with Jakob Olofsgård regarding what he says - that it is incredibly important that people all around our country feel a trust in the political decision-makers, because they are their representatives.

We heard in a previous speech Jakob Olofsgård mention that this issue is not just big. It is bigger than the Tidö Agreement. That is where my question comes in. If this issue is so big and one from Sverigedemokraterna in this speaker's chair does not clearly say that they intend to cease anonymous methods of influence, I wonder: Is it not time for the Liberalerna to announce right here and now that the Tidö Agreement is dissolved?

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

Jakob Olofsgård (L)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Samuel Gonzalez Westling, for the question! It is worth noting that this is such a major issue that I have wanted to highlight. In particular, that is why we want to see legislation that affects all parties. It is about learning from history. This has been shown to occur far out on the fringes – on both sides. It can repeat itself over and over again. Therefore, we need legislation.

This issue is larger than the Tidö Agreement – I hope the member noted that I said that. The Tidö Agreement is about things that we agree on. It is about substantive policy and about taking responsibility for this country, for energy policy, for the growing crime, and for a school system that is at its breaking point. It is an agreement that takes responsibility in those issues. But when it comes to this issue, the member is completely right to point out: Here, I do not agree with the Sverigedemokraterna.

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

Samuel Gonzalez Westling (V)

Madam Speaker! I thought I would take the opportunity to summarize this entire debate. What we have been able to establish here is that all parties admit that anonymous methods of influence are a problem. One party also admits that they intend to continue using these despite it being a problem. But the parties that are in a cooperation with this party do not think it is such a serious democratic problem. They do not really think so. If that were the case, they would have said that it is more important for our democracy and our society not to give these types of forces air, space, and power.

This is what it is about, and this is what I hope people take with them moving forward.

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

Jakob Olofsgård (L)

Madam Speaker! I want to clarify something: During the party secretary talks that took place between all parties, those from Vänsterpartiet were also not prepared to sign a code of honor, which concerned me very much. One holds the flag high and speaks of holding civil rights and transparency very high, but one was not willing to do it.

Nor constructive proposals came from Vänsterpartiet during the election campaign either. The only ones who put forward constructive proposals were we in Liberalerna. Vänsterpartiet has the opportunity to stand behind these proposals in the parliamentary investigation that now exists. It could mean something for real.

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

Malin Björk (C)

Madam Speaker! Jakob Olofsgård said here at the rostrum that the Liberals say no to anonymous accounts. This is, of course, very welcome. It is necessary that we all do it; it is important for our democracy.

Jakob Olofsgård has mentioned the oversight committee and the initiative that the Liberals have proposed to include or at least include a ban on anonymous accounts within the framework of the investigation. According to the reports I have received from there, however, an additional directive from the government would be needed in order to be able to include it.

In my opinion, it is not correct that it is only the Liberals who have proposed initiatives. As I have mentioned previously, the Center Party has also proposed initiatives, in the Committee on the Constitution. However, these have been put on ice pending what will happen in the transparency committee, where decisions are to be made in September. Will the Liberals stand behind the Center Party's committee initiative in KU if nothing comes of the supplementary directive in the investigation?

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

Jakob Olofsgård (L)

Madam Speaker! I thank Malin Björk for the question.

It feels like we are slightly divided on what happened and what did not happen at the last committee meeting. My impression is that everyone was asked to take this home to take a position and then return at the next meeting. One had to see if this was something that could be done.

So, no decision was made at the latest meeting, and we need to wait for that before we can start talking about a committee initiative.

I do not agree with the member that a decision was lacking at the previous meeting. What the feeling was when one left, or what one has heard, is a completely different matter. We must be able to make a concrete decision at a sitting meeting in order to then know what the way forward looks like.

I want to point out that we currently have an opportunity to resolve this by making a decision at the next meeting. Is anyone from the Center Party willing to back the Liberals?

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

Malin Björk (C)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Jakob Olofsgård, for the question! I say yes - Centerpartiet is ready to back it up.

I received no answer as to whether the Liberals are prepared to stand behind the committee initiative if the other falls in the committee in September. I still wish for an answer on this.

Robert Beronius is the group leader for the Liberals in Norrtälje, which until very recently was governed there together with the Moderates, Christian Democrats, and Sweden Democrats. He left that government in protest against troll accounts. He said the following in an interview: First, the Sweden Democrats denied that they had any troll accounts. Then came the revelation that they had troll accounts, and then they came out and were very proud of them. After that, the Sweden Democrat municipal councilor distanced herself from troll accounts and said that they would stop using them. She did, however, back down from that three days later.

This was a red line for Robert Beronius. Is it a red line for the Liberals if the Sweden Democrats do not stop using anonymous accounts?

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

Jakob Olofsgård (L)

Madam Speaker! I want to point out that municipal politics takes place at the municipal level. There is a difference when it comes to how one finds constellations and cooperates in municipalities.

There are municipalities in Sweden where the Center Party cooperates with the Sweden Democrats, for example Uppvidinge and Skinnskatteberg. I note that one has not raised their voice in the same way as in Norrtälje. Why has that not been done?

In Norrtälje, the parties are clear about what they think, Madam Speaker, just as they are at the national level. Which measures are taken and in what way cooperation occurs is, however, up to each municipality.

I welcome that the Center Party asks questions and sets demands on the Sweden Democrats in its municipalities in the same way as has been done in Norrtälje.

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

Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)

Madam Speaker! I begin by thanking you for the opportunity to have this debate today.

It is, of course, as has emerged during today's debate, important that everyone who participates in the political conversation as representatives of political parties contributes to objectivity and clarity, both regarding the message and regarding the sender. This applies particularly in times when different actors in different ways seek to increase contradictions in our society and erode trust in our democratic institutions.

The government is taking a number of measures to meet the threats that exist against our democracy. I have accounted for them during the course of the debate. A new strategy against violence-promoting extremism, reinforced psychological defense, and an investment in strengthening the public's media and information literacy are some of them. Furthermore, I welcome the discussions being held between the parties in the Riksdag regarding which rules of the game should apply going forward, specifically regarding our political parties.

Many thanks for today!

The special debate was hereby concluded.

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