Stricter view on crimes against journalists and certain other socially beneficial functions

Richard Jomshof (SD)

Madam Speaker! Today we shall take a position on a number of legislative amendments, including in the Penal Code. The purpose of these legislative amendments is to strengthen the criminal law protection for journalists but also for practitioners of what are called certain socially useful functions, that is, functions that are of central importance for our society. It concerns personnel within health and medical care, social services, emergency services, school and education.

It is good that we finally get this in place. Not least my own party, Sverigedemokraterna, has pushed these issues for many years. We have also been able to see a number of announcements concerning exactly these issues. These are announcements that aim to strengthen the legal protection for exactly staff within healthcare but also for staff within emergency services and school. These are issues that matter.

It is not possible to completely prevent threats, violence, and harassment through, for example, measures regarding the work environment. Therefore, stricter penalties were needed, not least to clearly demonstrate how seriously society views crimes of this nature.

Madam Speaker! In February, we had a special debate here in the chamber on the subject of corruption, and a month later, a special debate on the threat to our democratic institutions. I want to assert that both of these issues are connected to what we are debating here today.

I want to assert that it is no secret at all that the very large immigration of recent years, which has created segregation and which has created division, has come to worsen the situation on several different levels.

We see it in the problems with gang crime and organized crime. It is, among other things, once again about how gang criminals with very large amounts of violence, for example, try to infiltrate political parties in order to thereby influence different forms of decisions, for example, municipal decisions. They also use different forms of threats to achieve their goals.

We see it in the demands to restrict our extensive freedom of opinion and expression. This applies in particular to the demand that some put forward that we should reintroduce blasphemy laws. These are demands that, unfortunately, are also put forward by certain politicians.

We can also see how the free formation of opinion is threatened through threats and attacks against politicians and not least against persons who work with news dissemination and other journalism.

If we have a situation, which unfortunately is quite common, where journalists for example refrain from reporting on a certain topic due to threats of violence or various forms of reprisals, it is naturally unacceptable. It is not just a threat against the individual themselves. It is also a threat to democracy and our entire social system.

Madam Speaker! It is not just about strengthening the criminal protection for journalists. As mentioned, it also concerns staff within healthcare, social services, emergency services, and schools. The reason for this is that these are professional categories that are particularly vulnerable in their daily practice. They are, therefore, exposed to various forms of threats, sometimes even violence. It is a situation that, I would argue, has become serious and has worsened in recent years. There is a long line of examples that demonstrate exactly this. We can go back a few years - we have been able to see this even earlier. We have, for example, seen stone-throwing and various forms of attacks on emergency services personnel.

It has been reported on many different occasions how healthcare personnel, not least in emergency departments, and social services personnel are not only subjected to threats but also to violence. These are, therefore, direct attacks.

We can see that staff within school and education, an area that otherwise is very close to my heart, are very vulnerable. Here we also see that the situation has worsened in recent years. I know that Skolverket has conducted an attitude survey - I believe that is what it is called - where they investigated the situation. In that, for example, as many as a quarter of the teachers reported that they have been subjected to some form of threat or violence during the last school year.

It is a serious situation. Even here, threats, violence, and violations naturally do not only mean that it is an attack and a crime against the individual themselves, but it is an attack against the entire democratic system and these important societal functions.

Madam Speaker! It is also proposed that the maximum penalty for crimes against the duty of confidentiality be increased, but also that a serious crime against the duty of confidentiality be introduced. I think it is a reasonable proposal, not least when it, for example, concerns someone disclosing or using secret information about crime-fighting activities within the Swedish Police Authority. Such actions can naturally lead to the work of preventing, hindering, and detecting criminal activity being affected negatively and sometimes very negatively. But it can also be about someone disclosing protected personal data, which naturally entails a risk for the individual in question.

I think, overall, that these are well-balanced proposals in this report. One can, of course, discuss whether one should go significantly further in some cases. One can discuss whether more groups should be included. But I believe that this is a good start. I think these are good proposals, and I want to vote in favor of the committee's proposals in the report.

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

Gudrun Nordborg (V)

Madam Speaker! The bill "Strengthened view on crimes against journalists and certain other socially useful functions" touches on very important issues regarding how we can achieve better protection for democracy and important societal functions.

Journalists are already mentioned in the headline. The Government proposes, in addition, that the reinforced criminal protection shall cover staff within health and medical care, social services, emergency services, and the school. The Government notes that all these professional groups have socially beneficial functions and invokes that the investigation's mapping also shows that all these professional groups are particularly vulnerable to, among other things, threats and violence in the exercise of their profession.

Despite this, the Left Party only partially agrees that this legislation is a good proposal to highlight the values that are desired. We in the Left Party continue to stand behind both of our reservations, but I move for approval only to reservation 1, which means that we move for the rejection of the committee's proposal in the report. Reservation 2 shows that we in the Left Party desire a rethink when it comes to providing better protection for some of the categories that the report and the bill refer to. We want to focus further on journalists but also on staff within health and medical care if they work with emergency admissions of patients and likewise staff within the rescue services.

I believe we are in agreement that journalists have an incredibly important function in a democracy. They are the ones who can monitor, inform, and invite discussions about how our society functions or does not function. Accurate and unrestricted news reporting is extremely important and serves as a basis for our opportunities as citizens and residents in Sweden to form an opinion on important issues. This also presupposes that people who are active in conveying and producing news and articles with analyses and so on can do so without being subjected to influence in the form of threats, harassment, or other crimes that interfere with their work.

There are, of course, risks even in talking about the group that was victimized. There is a risk of self-censorship, that one refrains from reporting or that one under-reports. There are even those who are considering quitting their profession. It is also about the courage to dare to handle fake news. Both directly and in the long run, it is obvious that this is about both the individual and democracy as a whole.

It is also interesting how we use legislation and what methods we resort to. In recent years, we have enacted a number of laws here in the chamber that involve general tightenings when it comes to protection against violence, threats, and harassment. I do not list them, but I believe that several in here and also many outside the chamber know that criminal penalties are being tightened.

These general measures naturally also include the journalists. The question then is whether we need extra rules for, for example, the journalists. There we are entering into a question that I find very interesting and which we sometimes handle sloppily in the Chamber. Which legislative principles should we try to follow? Is it the case that we should have rules as general as possible and follow the principle of equality before the law so that we do not single out some and not others? Should we, instead of a general wording, point out exactly which action it is that we want to reach? Can we also generalize when it comes to the actions themselves?

Several of the referral bodies have addressed these questions in a very interesting way but stop at that a tightening of the penalty would be what perhaps fits best after all.

One also warns against going further down this path. For example, the Chancellor of Justice says that there are already extensive examples in this paragraph regarding the possibility of increased penalties and which circumstances could lead to that. The increased penalty we are now discussing would be number 11 in that catalogue. It is clear that there are many, given that in the Penal Code it concerned a few very general ones regarding a principled vulnerability, something that would also be useful today.

JO also notes that work is being done on a patchwork in the Penal Code and that the proposals should be further considered. Vänsterpartiet agrees with that.

Then there are different statements from those who work closely with journalists. For example, the Association of Investigative Journalists may primarily be concerned with a sentence increase, while several groups discuss which journalists we intend to refer to. Several particularly want to protect independent journalists who are not part of an editorial office but who can be extremely important in opinion-forming. Those who do not belong to an editorial office are particularly vulnerable because they do not have any support from an employer.

The previous point was about the journalists, and there you understand that protection was needed. The Left Party also thinks that, but it has been packaged in a way that is not successful. When the government also proposes that this reinforced criminal protection should cover a very large group of people – staff within healthcare, social services, emergency services, and schools – very many have wondered what it actually concerns. Are there any limits? It is argued that these are vague formulations that can make it difficult to apply.

Some clarifications regarding what was intended have arrived. By school, it is also meant higher education including the universities, and school counselors could be included if they also have a part in the teaching. When it comes to colleges and universities, one can however wonder if the preparation requirement is met for this legislation because they were not included in the investigation.

So a principled objection. It is the employer who should have decisive influence and power over our working situation and ensure that it is safe and that we are as safe as possible regarding accidents or attacks.

When it comes to journalists, it is perhaps such an enormous group that could be subject to attacks that it is difficult to say that the employer would be able to handle it fully. But for several other groups, it is about their more concrete work environment, perhaps inside institutions, agencies, or clinics, and there one can think much more about work environment issues. Several referral bodies have also pointed out that it would be better to work around work environment issues than to resort to criminal law. Still, it is as if our current government almost exclusively wants to follow this with the criminal law toughening.

We think it results in double messages. Now there will probably be a sentencing increase, while we are working with large budget deficits in welfare across all of Sweden. Municipalities and regions are on their knees, and then one can ask if it is reasonable that we only look at criminal law. We should be able to provide additional resources to these socially important institutions, build on what becomes changes in the work environment and perhaps also look at the work environment legislation. We want to emphasize that it is extremely important to get sufficient resources and enough staff to be able to handle these socially important functions. Furthermore, one must have well-established security routines. Unfortunately, that does not seem to be the case.

Vänsterpartiet wants us to say stop when it comes to introducing these increased penalties generally against several different groups. We want that they return to the matter when it concerns journalists, those who work in health and medical care with handling in acute situations, and rescue personnel.

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

Annika Strandhäll (S)

Madam Speaker! A man in his 40s is being prosecuted after he threatened a journalist at his home outside Kungsbacka, local media report. The drama took place on a Sunday evening in April.

The journalist was at home with his wife and the couple's two children. Suddenly, there was intense ringing at the door, and through a window, the journalist could see a man he had previously reported on several times. The man, who also had a weapon, yanked at the doors and windows of the house and shouted for the journalist to come out.

The family alerted 112 and sought shelter in the bathroom. Later, Tobias, his wife Mia, and their two children were forced to flee their house. The suspect, who is known to the police from before, was arrested a day later. The crime will be investigated as a democracy and hate crime.

The previous, Social Democratic-led government tightened the penalties for crimes against important social groups on several occasions. This includes, among other things, the penalty for the crime called blue-light sabotage, where a strengthened criminal law protection for blue-light activities and the exercise of authority was introduced in 2019. We also tightened the penalties for crimes committed against elected officials, as even politicians in regions, municipalities, Sami Parliaments, and the European Parliament are exposed to threats and hate.

We also appointed the investigation that forms the basis for the proposal for a parliamentary decision that we are now presenting, which concerns strengthening the criminal law protection for journalists and other socially beneficial functions. I will focus on the journalists in this speech.

In addition to the story I have just shared with you, the fact is that the threat and hatred against Swedish journalists is increasing radically. That is how it looks in Sweden, and that is how it looks in Europe, where we see record numbers of threats against journalists. We see it primarily in authoritarian states such as Turkey, Belarus, Russia, Azerbaijan, Georgia and Poland, to name a few. When one examines this, one can however state that it is going in the wrong direction even in Sweden. Threats and hatred are part of many journalists' everyday lives. It concerns both threats via the internet, which are increasing more and more, and – as I shared with you here – direct, physical threats.

Sweden, together with Norway and Denmark, still has perhaps the world's strongest freedom of the press, but the high threat levels in social media are worrying to say the least. In Reporters Without Borders' press freedom index for 2023, it appears that Sweden still ranks at the top relatively speaking, but we are truly on a slippery slope, to use an English expression.

When it comes to the press freedom index, we lose another place this year and now land in 4th place regarding the overall assessment. But what is even worse is that we lose an additional eight places compared to last year when it comes to journalists' safety in Sweden. We now land in 40th place. This should be taken most seriously.

When we look at which areas trigger the storms of hate, we find no surprises. It is the hatred against immigration, and it is questions about migration and crime. It is the hatred against feminists when issues of gender equality are discussed. Perhaps especially when we look at the hatred against female journalists, we also see that it is extremely sexualized and takes on a significantly more personal expression.

One of the latest surveys shows that 70 percent of Swedish journalists were subjected to derogatory comments during the past year. During the last twelve months, 30 percent have been threatened in Sweden. 40 percent of Swedish journalists have refrained from writing about topics that cause them to risk being subjected to attacks. 50 percent of Sweden's journalists have, in order to avoid the same, adjusted their reporting.

At the same time, we initially saw in this debate the chairman of the Committee on Justice, Richard Jomshof from Sverigedemokraterna, standing here once again performing his balancing act of blaming immigration. But it is simply, as they say, fake news.

The previous government commissioned an investigation from the University of Gothenburg which arrived in 2019. There are also corresponding investigations internationally. The Swedish investigation showed that the threats and the hate that Swedish journalists are subjected to, with extreme overrepresentation, come from the right-wing extreme, i.e., from the Sweden Democrats' friends. It concerned 43 percent, compared to the 2 percent that came from the left. 54 percent of the hate had racist motives, and 83 percent of those who expressed it were men.

At the same time, Richard Jomshof is standing here again talking about immigrants and immigration. I stand here today to emphasize that we must sharpen our view on what constitutes a crime against journalists. That is why the previous government commissioned this investigation – because we saw this development, Richard Jomshof.

In a democracy, a free and independent press is of paramount importance to ensure openness, accountability, and civic engagement. Therefore, it is also of paramount importance that we act and strengthen the protection for those who work within these areas. To attack a journalist does not only mean committing a crime against an individual, as in the case I mentioned initially, but it is also a crime against the very foundation – Swedish democracy. We must strengthen our legal frameworks and security measures to protect journalists and strengthen their ability to perform their work without reprisals.

At the same time, it is the case that the chief of staff for the largest party in the Swedish government base, the well-known Sweden Democrat politician Linus Bylund, the day after the election result was announced stood outside the Swedish Parliament and spoke about that he would engage in journalist rugby. To the question of what he meant by that, he replied that it was about pushing journalists. Then he smirked a little. He did this despite the fact that we have the development that I have just described. He also said: Now we have danced to your tune - now we decide when we talk to you!

Every party that stands up for Swedish democracy and Swedish values should consider what this stands for.

I vote in favor of the proposal in today's report.

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

Rasmus Ling (MP)

Madam Speaker! I shall keep it very brief. We have an invitation to Farsta from the Minister for Justice, and when the government calls, I believe one shows up.

The bill we are debating contains good proposals from the government. The SMP government appointed the commission of inquiry. Journalists are not just any professional group; they are news providers and describe society with its problems and injustices. Sharpening the view on crimes against journalists is an important democratic measure. As mentioned, there are also more professional categories included in this.

From the perspective of the Green Party, however, we believe that one should have gone even further. Other opinion leaders than journalists – such as those who are part of civil society – should also be covered by this bill. Therefore, I wish to move for approval of reservation 3.

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

Charlotte Nordström (M)

Madam Speaker! The information that journalists are considering refraining from or adapting their reporting on a subject to avoid threats or hate, and even considering quitting, is alarming and shows an absurd situation. Hate and threats of violence against journalists who exercise their freedom of speech is a major democratic problem. Strong action is needed against those who threaten free speech.

That a social worker feels afraid of threats or violence when performing their important work of helping and supporting people, and that one feels afraid of threats and violence when one is to support and protect children, is appalling. A tightening is required. We have all surely heard of staff who testify to a terrible everyday life with threats and pressure to influence decisions.

The same applies to teachers. They should not have to put up with hate and threats and feel anxiety before a lesson about what might happen and be triggered in the classroom. They should have peace and quiet and be able to convey knowledge to children and young people without fear.

In order for us to regain control in Swedish schools, threats and violence must have serious consequences. It must not be systemic that teachers can be threatened and beaten away. It is not the teachers who should have to take sick leave due to fear and then be relocated when they themselves have been subjected to crimes.

Teachers have contacts with many people. These are contacts that they cannot opt out of, but rather they are central parts of the teacher's profession. This means that this simply cannot be prevented through work environment measures.

The criminal law protection must be strengthened for journalists and certain other socially useful professional groups. It is unacceptable that those who engage in news reporting or perform another socially useful function and help and support people are subjected to violence, threats, or harassment. This is a crime that is very serious in itself, but because the individual crime victim performs a special function in our society, it also becomes an attack against our democracy and our society. It is important that we signal how seriously we view this type of crime. This is something we can influence now.

The government wants to strengthen the criminal law protection for these professional groups and proposes that a special basis for increased penalties be introduced when it concerns journalists, i.e., that the crime shall be assessed as particularly serious if it is specifically a journalist who is targeted in their professional role, regardless of which crime it is. This is a tool to end up higher up in the sentencing scale, and that is good.

When it comes to occupational groups with a socially beneficial function, such as personnel within health and medical care, social services, emergency services, and education, the law shall be amended so that more groups are covered by today's rules for violence and threats against public officials. They will gain access to protection and penalty scales that they do not have today, so this change will be good.

Of course, the employer has a responsibility to organize the work so that a safe working environment is ensured and so that vulnerability can be reduced and protection strengthened through measures other than criminal law. But the contacts they have in their profession are a central part of the work for everyone in the affected groups, which means that threats, violence, and other attacks can never be prevented through workplace environment measures. I also believe that it is extremely important to specifically mark the seriousness of such violations through legislation, which constitute an attack not only against the person performing the socially useful function but, in the long run, also against the socially useful function itself and our society as such.

Madam Speaker! In the bill, the government also proposes that the penalty for serious and intentional crimes against the duty of confidentiality shall be tightened. These are crimes that can have serious consequences both for individuals and for the operations of authorities. The public has a legitimate demand that public operations are conducted responsibly and correctly. We must be able to feel confidence that information of such a character that it is, according to law, to be considered particularly worthy of protection is not disclosed or exploited in an unlawful manner.

In the proposition, it is assessed that there may be cases where the current sentencing scale means that it is not possible to impose a sentence that is fully in proportion to the gravity of the crime. There is therefore a need to tighten the penalty for serious crimes against the duty of confidentiality. Therefore, it is proposed that the maximum penalty for crimes against the duty of confidentiality be raised and that the offense classification gross crime against the duty of confidentiality be introduced.

The proposals in the bill are based on proposals from the investigation on the subject but also have connections to a number of announcements regarding socially useful functions that the Riksdag has decided on previously.

Madam Speaker! Hat and threats against journalists and certain others within important socially beneficial functions is an attack against them but also an attack against democracy and against the free and open society. Therefore, it is important that we in the legislation clearly mark how seriously we view this type of crime. We can do that now.

I move for approval of the committee's proposal to reject the motions with reservations and adopt the government's proposal for legislative amendments to enter into force on 1 August 2023.

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

Ulrika Liljeberg (C)

Madam Speaker! Equality before the law is one of the fundamental principles in our rule of law. If we are to make exceptions from this principle, it must be on very good grounds. I want to emphasize that violence, threats of violence, or harassment against a person must, regardless of who the person is, be taken most seriously. But there are sometimes reasons to have an enhanced criminal protection for practitioners of certain socially useful functions or a specific ground for increased penalties for crimes against certain professionals.

The individuals who are part of these groups maintain roles and have missions that are greater than their own persons. It is the firefighter whose job is to run toward the events that we others can run away from. It is the healthcare staff at the emergency room who have to receive the wounded and injured regardless of how they themselves are treated. It is the field assistant who seeks out those that many of us others try to avoid, and it is the journalist who scrutinizes the public, companies and organizations so that the citizens and society are significantly stronger and better with a free press than without.

As many have already said, the development is unfortunately such that more and more practitioners of socially beneficial functions are increasingly encountering violence, threats, and harassment. It is not sustainable, because without people who want to work for our common good or be active as journalists, society is poorly off.

Madam Speaker! The Centre Party shares the government's and the committee's assessment that a stricter criminal law protection is needed for certain socially useful functions that do not exercise public authority and for those who professionally practice journalism.

I would, however, like to make a supplementary point. Some of the crime we are debating here in the chamber is, for various reasons, more common in certain parts of the country. But those who work within the welfare that the bill covers – social services, health and medical personnel, emergency services, and educational staff within the school system – are present in all 290 municipalities in the country. This demands a police presence throughout the entire country, because access to justice and the judicial system is just as important as the laws we enact here today. That responsibility lies with the government to shoulder.

With that said, I move for approval of the committee's proposal.

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

Torsten Elofsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! We are debating harsher penalties for crimes against journalists and certain other socially beneficial functions. It concerns professional groups that are completely central to our democracy: free speech and our common welfare. These are groups that, in their daily work, have large points of contact with society and many encounters with people. They are part of the fundamental foundation that makes our society function.

We must be clear that an attack on these professional groups and against the third estate, namely the media, is an attack against our entire society. It is unacceptable that those who practice investigative journalism, save lives within healthcare, or teach our children to read and write are subjected to violence, threats, or harassment in their profession. It is not only a crime against the individual person but, in the long run, also against democracy and the foundations of our society. It must never be normalized or accepted.

Unfortunately, we have a situation today where we frequently receive reports that personnel in the rescue services have been threatened or attacked when they are trying to save lives or property, and that incidents are occurring at the hospitals' emergency rooms. Likewise, threats against personnel within social services are reported, and an increased number of incidents in our schools.

Threatening journalists is also a crime against free speech. The proposals for increased penalties that are now being presented have long been demanded by the press corps and the profession, and it is not difficult to understand why. The threats, hate, and harassment are constantly increasing. The Journalists' Association's latest survey shows that almost 30 percent of Sweden's journalists have been threatened during the last twelve months, and it has serious consequences. Many are the journalists who report that they have avoided covering a certain topic or a certain issue because of threats. There are also several examples of journalists who have considered leaving or even have left journalism because of direct threats directed at them personally and in some cases against their family and children.

That is why it is welcome that the government's proposal also takes note of the growing group of freelance journalists. It is a group that is often particularly vulnerable because freelancers, unlike a person with a traditional employment, cannot receive help from their employer with issues regarding the work environment and safety. It is important that we also see this group of journalists.

Madam Speaker! Sweden has a long and strong tradition of freedom of speech, and we should be very proud of that. The freedom to be able to express opinions, shape public opinion, and express thoughts and feelings is completely fundamental for a democracy. Therefore, it is important that every threat against the free word is taken most seriously and that the penalties are tightened for those who direct hate and threats towards journalists or important personnel within the welfare sector. That the penalties must be in proportion to the crimes is obvious for us Kristdemokrater.

I vote in favor of the committee's proposal.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(A decision was to be made on 20 June.)

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