Enhanced security at public gatherings and public events

Mikael Damsgaard (M)

Madam Speaker! We are now considering the government's bill Strengthened security at public gatherings and public events.

The right to demonstrate and meet is a cornerstone of democracy in Sweden. We have our right to express our opinion and to protest against power. It is a right that applies to everyone – even for those who wish to express opinions that some may perceive as provocative or offensive.

In Sweden, each person is, according to Chapter 2, Section 1 of the Instrument of Government, guaranteed freedom of assembly and freedom of demonstration towards the public. These are freedoms that may only be restricted if it is necessary with regard to order and security at the assembly or demonstration, to traffic, to the security of the realm, or to counter a plague.

Restrictions may only be made in order to satisfy purposes that are acceptable in a democratic society. Furthermore, restrictions may not go further than what is necessary for the purpose or extend so far that it is a threat to the free formation of opinion. A restriction may also not be made solely on the grounds of political, religious, cultural or other such views.

Restrictions on the freedom of assembly and the freedom of demonstration are regulated more specifically in the provisions of the Public Order Act. It is stated there, among other things, that public gatherings and public events may not be organized without a permit. The provisions also state what an application shall contain and what grounds can be the basis for refusing a permit. According to the Public Order Act, a permit may only be refused if it is necessary with regard to public order or safety at the gathering or in its immediate vicinity, with regard to traffic, or in order to counter an epidemic.

Madam Speaker! In order for people to be able to gather and express their opinions in a safe way, the government proposes certain changes to the Public Order Act for increased security at public gatherings and public events.

There have been some misunderstandings in the debate surrounding this product. There is therefore reason to be clear. The proposals are in no way intended to prohibit or restrict expressions of opinion that may be perceived as controversial.

None of the proposals give the police expanded powers to deny permission for a public assembly. The grounds for when permission for a public assembly may be denied are therefore proposed to remain unchanged. In other words, the police authority will not be given more room than today to deny permission for controversial expressions of opinion by referring to, for example, security risks.

Madam Speaker! In the bill, a number of changes are proposed.

The Police Authority is given clearer powers to change the time or place for a public assembly. A decision to change the time or place shall always be preceded by a proportionality assessment. The decision shall include an assessment of how central the time or place is for the purpose of the assembly. An assembly held in violation of a decision on changed time or place will be able to be dissolved.

The Swedish Police Authority is given the opportunity, in certain cases, to prohibit a public assembly from being held at a certain time or place. The amendment means that instead of completely prohibiting an assembly, the Swedish Police Authority shall first consider whether it is sufficient to prohibit the assembly at a certain time or place.

The proposals regarding time and place aim to give the police access to a milder alternative in cases where it would otherwise have been necessary, according to today's regulations, to completely deny permission for the assembly.

Furthermore, it is proposed that a public assembly and public event shall be able to be cancelled in consideration of the safety of people's lives or health, for example if there is information regarding a credible bomb threat against the assembly or the event. This change essentially means a return to the legal situation that was considered to apply before the Supreme Administrative Court's ruling in 2023.

Madam Speaker! Today, the police may dissolve a demonstration in consideration of the safety of people's lives and health, for example in the case of serious threats of attacks, but not preemptively cancel it. In practice, this means that the police are forced to wait even if it is known that a gathering will need to be dissolved as soon as it begins due to serious risks to people's lives or health.

To cancel a public assembly or public event, it will not be sufficient with more severe disorder or serious disruptions in traffic, but there must be an unacceptable danger to people's lives or health. This means that there will be high requirements for a demonstration to be able to be cancelled in advance.

Madam Speaker! Finally, the Police Authority will also receive expanded powers to intervene against individuals who disturb the peace or do not comply with decisions.

Through this bill, which a unanimous Committee on Justice proposes that the Riksdag should support, security at public gatherings and public events is strengthened – all with the aim of safeguarding our constitutionally protected rights to carry out demonstrations or hold other public gatherings.

With this, I vote in favor of the committee's proposal in the report.

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

Gudrun Nordborg (V)

Madam Speaker! I also vote in favor of the committee's proposal in the report.

I reiterate that these are extremely important issues that we are now discussing. Freedom of assembly and freedom of demonstration are cornerstones of Swedish democracy; they must continue to be, and they should preferably also be developed. As was just mentioned, we have rules in the constitution, in the Instrument of Government, which aim to mark the value of freedom of assembly and demonstration. This is already found in Chapter 2, Section 1 of the Instrument of Government.

A limitation is permitted only in certain cases – if it is necessary with regard to public order and safety, to traffic, to national security or to counter epidemics. A limitation may only be made if it serves a purpose that is acceptable in a democratic society.

You may have noticed that I tried to emphasize the words national security as a reason for the limitations. This was actually the background to the investigation proposal, as it concerned the Quran burnings and the international attention resulting from them. It was also questioned where the limit for hate speech against a population group lies in connection with demonstrations.

This legal situation has since been clarified: A Quran burning alone does not constitute incitement against a population group, but if one simultaneously acts or expresses oneself contemptuously towards a population group, it constitutes incitement against a population group in the aggregate.

The issue was handled by the investigation, and the referral bodies were critical when it came to whether one should proceed and act when it concerned the security of the realm. This includes Säpo, which argued that the Quran burnings or, as it was expressed, the desecration of religious scriptures more generally have evoked powerful reactions and led to Sweden becoming more exposed to violent Islamist extremism.

Despite this, the Swedish Security Service argues that this would involve great risks and problems that, from the Swedish Security Service's perspective, are not acceptable. They therefore absolutely rule out proceeding with this when it concerns Sweden's security. Moreover, these objections are frequent also from other referral bodies, and this is not included in the bill.

A unanimous committee now stands behind the proposal and the purpose that it may be necessary to clarify and adapt the rules in a better way.

For a demonstration permit, it will now be required to specify not only the time, which was a legal requirement previously, but also the location. I would like to assert that this is actually practice today, but it is now also being codified into law.

One is now also introducing an opportunity for the police, instead of prohibiting a gathering at a certain time and place, to decide on a different time or place than what was requested in the application.

The need to change the time or place can be based on the time or place being judged as risky due to very large counter-demonstrations or some expressed danger. In that case, the Swedish Police Authority must see how this can be handled in an appropriate manner. During the matter, it is said in the bill, one should conduct a dialogue with the organizer and try to find a suitable time and place that does not nullify the purpose of the demonstration.

Another question concerns when one may dissolve or suspend a demonstration. Here, the government wants to ensure that one can act in advance. One should not have to wait until the demonstration actually starts before acting, but instead, one should be able to suspend it and find suitable alternatives instead of simply shutting it down.

When we then come to what can be punishable for an organizer, we can notice that it does not include carrying out a demonstration without a permit. However, it does include having a gathering or public event, for example a demonstration, for which a permit has been refused or which stands in defiance of a decision on changed time or place or against a renewal prohibition which may have resulted from having previously misbehaved at a certain time or place. It also becomes punishable to continue the gathering if the police have decided that it needs to be cancelled with regard to people's lives and health – it is limited to this – and if it concerns a serious such risk.

These proposals are naturally important to keep track of. From the Left Party's side, we will monitor the application closely. I believe that many of us will ensure that there are discussions if someone slips on any of these rules, which we should respect in a democratic society.

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

Ulrika Liljeberg (C)

Madam Speaker! Today we are debating the Committee on Justice's report, Strengthened security at public gatherings and public events. It concerns what we could call the demonstration law.

Let me begin by being completely clear: The fundamental freedoms and rights – freedom of expression, freedom of information, freedom of the press, freedom of association, freedom of religion, freedom of assembly, and freedom of demonstration – are and remain pillars of our Swedish democracy. They are not negotiable.

The right to assemble, express opinions, and demonstrate applies to everyone – even for those who wish to convey opinions that may be perceived as significantly provocative or offensive. Of course, one is not allowed to threaten people, incite hatred against a population group, or instigate crimes, but one is allowed to say the uncomfortable, the difficult, and the challenging.

It is precisely with that starting point that a unanimous committee stands behind this bill. It is not about restricting these rights. It is about guaranteeing that they can be exercised in a safe and secure manner. A right that cannot be exercised without risk to life and health is, in practice, a hollowed-out right.

Society has indeed changed. The threat landscape is more complex, and the current Public Order Act, which in large parts dates back to the 1950s, has proven to have deficiencies. We have today a situation where the Swedish Police Authority may have knowledge of a credible bomb threat against a planned gathering but is still forced to wait until the event has begun before it can be cancelled. Several others have raised this in the debate, and it is important that we now, through this bill, close that loophole.

Madam Speaker! The proposal also contains other important and well-considered tools.

Firstly, the police's authority to decide on another time or place for a gathering is clarified. This is not a way to silence inconvenient opinions but a proportionate and less intrusive tool that can be used instead of completely refusing a permit.

When the alternative is a total rejection, for example due to public order or security risks at colliding demonstrations, this bill provides an opportunity to say: Yes, you may demonstrate but at another location or at another time. It strengthens the actual possibility of making one's voice heard.

It is, however, important, and this is something the Center Party has raised in the dialogue we have had, that this possibility is not used to move a demonstration in such a way that it defeats the entire purpose of the demonstration. Being able to gather on a certain day, at a certain time, or at a certain place can sometimes be the very point of gathering. Therefore, it is important to continue to monitor how this legislation is used by the police and by the courts.

Secondly, it is important to emphasize what the bill does not entail. I am pleased that the government has chosen not to proceed with the more far-reaching proposals from the commission which concerned introducing "Sweden's security" as a general basis for denying permits. They have listened to referral bodies and political parties that warned of lack of clarity and risk of arbitrariness.

Centerpartiet thinks that the proposal lying on the Riksdag's table is good. One has chosen not to take the broad and sweeping path. This is a precise, clear and delimited proposal that addresses the most acute security deficiencies without compromising legal certainty or fundamental freedoms.

We all know the reasons for the review that has been conducted. We had a situation in Sweden with Quran burnings and hung dolls of political leaders. Several of us here were part of the reference group for the public inquiry that was commissioned, and I would like to take the opportunity to say that as an opposition politician, I have appreciated the government's process in this. I often direct criticism at the government's processes, but I want to highlight when it is good and remind that it is good to have such a process in matters of this importance.

Safeguarding democracy is a constant balancing act. We must protect the right to express oneself and protect the citizens who exercise that right. At the same time, we must protect others' right not to be subjected to crimes in the form of unlawful threats, insults, or hate speech against a group.

This legislation is a modern and proportionate piece of legislation that gives the police and all of us the tools to do just that. It ensures that our constitutionally protected freedoms do not just become beautiful words on a piece of paper or in a speaker's chair, but living rights that can be exercised in a safe and secure environment. It is to strengthen democracy in practice.

Madam Speaker! With that said, I move for approval of the committee's proposal for a decision.

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

Martin Melin (L)

Madam Speaker! As we know, we have four fundamental laws in Sweden. Two of them handle parts of what we are debating today. It is the Instrument of Government, where we find the right to freedom of assembly and freedom of demonstration, and it is the Freedom of the Press Act, where we find the right to say what we think and believe.

Another law that can limit parts of what we all have a right to according to the constitution is the Public Order Act. It is how that law should be amended so that it becomes safer and more secure for those who want to organize a public assembly – commonly called a demonstration – which we are debating today.

If someone today wishes to hold a public assembly, that person shall apply for a permit from the Swedish Police Authority, and the authority must then either approve or reject the application.

Madam Speaker! The government now proposes that the Police Authority shall be given a third option, namely to deny an application but not reject it. Instead, the Police Authority shall be able to propose another time or another location for the public assembly. It shall then be justified in a proper and correct manner why, and the principle of proportionality shall apply. A milder decision is thus introduced than the decision on rejection that exists today. If the person, group, or organizer who receives such a decision – i.e., that the public assembly may be held but at another time or location or that the application is completely rejected – violates the decision, the responsible person can be reported, prosecuted, and sentenced. And the Police Authority can dissolve the public assembly.

Madam Speaker! This is something that has been requested from the Police Authority, and now it will be easier to avoid public gatherings exposing demonstrators, counter-demonstrators, or the general public to serious danger. That is good.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

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

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