Response to interpellation 2022/23:109 on a neutral police uniform
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
M believes that the police should observe objectivity and impartiality 1 and that a police officer with a kippa can act very objectively 2. M argues that the question of appropriate clothing is a matter for the Police Authority as an employer 1 2 and that the question is best handled there 3 4. M argues that the question is fundamentally justified but that the perception of symbols is subjective 3. SD considers that the exercise of authority should be neutral and free from religious and political markers. SD argues that religious symbols risk affecting trust negatively, provoking aggression 5 and creating negative feelings among citizens who have fled oppression 5. SD argues that the uniform should represent the state and that religious symbols are discriminatory. SD argues that the police may not wear signs that show personal conviction 5 and that the veil is an Islamist symbol 5. SD argues that one cannot rely on the police themselves making correct assessments.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)
Madam Speaker! Richard Jomshof has asked me whether I consider it to be permissible to wear religious attributes with the police uniform and whether I will act on the matter.
The police shall, like others who perform public administration tasks, in their activities consider everyone's equality before the law and furthermore observe objectivity and impartiality. It is completely fundamental, and it follows from the Instrument of Government. I have great confidence that the police act in a way that ensures their objectivity and impartiality cannot be questioned.
The question that Richard Jomshof raises, I believe, is of principled interest. Nevertheless, I maintain that what constitutes appropriate attire for a police officer on the ground is a matter for the Swedish Police Authority as an employer to decide upon. The uniform is developed with regard to requirements for safety, uniformity, and so forth.
In light of this, I do not intend to take any actions regarding the police uniforms.
Richard Jomshof (SD)
Madam Speaker! I would like to begin by thanking the Minister very much for the answer, even though I regret the government's position on the issue.
Let us go back to the National Police's collection of regulations from 2006. I believe it was there that it was first written that religious headcoverings in the form of a headscarf, kippah, or turban should be permitted with the police uniform. The decision was noted, not least in the summer of 2012, in connection with the fact that a designer had been tasked to develop what was called the new police veil. It was in connection with this that I myself became aware of and interested in the issue.
In the Police Authority's collection of regulations from November 28 last year, the decision is repeated. I find it remarkable. For me, it is a self-evident matter that all exercise of authority—and I believe the Minister also thinks this—should be neutral. This applies in particular to the police and the military given their monopoly on violence. Then the uniforms should also reflect this neutrality, and in order to do that, they must also be free from what I call religious and political markers.
When one does as in this case within the Police Authority and allows religious symbols on the uniforms, I mean that one risks affecting the trust in the police negatively. Not least, one opens up for a police force where individual officers' neutrality can be questioned just by a glance at their uniform.
Madam Speaker! I think the question also actually encompasses a perspective of fairness. If one enables certain religious groups to wear religious symbols on the police uniform, one should also, in the name of justice, allow other religious groups to do the same. In the long run, I mean that it also opens up for political groups to make the same demands.
Sweden is a secular country. In many ways, we are a secular democracy. Freedom of religion is just one of many freedoms. It does not stand above political freedom, but it is one of many freedoms. Therefore, I mean that it becomes discriminatory even towards political groups when they are also not allowed to wear their markers on the uniform. I naturally do not think it should be permitted, but I mean that there is a perspective of justice in this.
In our neighboring country Norway, for example, they have chosen to go a completely different way. In 2013, the then Norwegian Minister of Culture, Hadia Tajik, chose to clearly say no to precisely a proposal that was then being discussed in Norway about being allowed to wear religious symbols on the Norwegian police uniform. This was, as I can remember, an opinion shared by all parties in the Norwegian parliament. The main argument then was that public institutions should be neutral in their exercise, and it was argued that the uniform must also reflect this neutrality. Sigve Bolstad, who was then chairman of the Norwegian Police Association, in turn clarified that there should be what he called a police officer and a uniform, precisely for this reason.
In view of this, I have two follow-up questions. The Minister has already answered in itself, but the question is whether the Minister shares the view that the Swedish police should be neutral in their performance. I mean that it should also be reflected in the uniform one wears. The concept of uniform means uniform, homogeneous, and similar. If one allows a so-called uniform to have these symbols, it is no longer a uniform; it is therefore no longer uniform.
Thomas Morell (SD)
Madam Speaker! I had to enter the interpellation debate, because I myself have worked in uniform for twelve years - in this case, I worked at the traffic police. The uniform signaled to the public I met that I stood for the Swedish state and the legislation that we have to manage. No one could ever question my purpose with the mission I had.
I react to the answer that the Minister gives the interpellator. He says that police officers, like others who perform public administration tasks in their work, shall respect everyone's equality before the law as well as observe objectivity and impartiality. If one mixes other symbols into the uniform, one is no longer impartial.
One can turn the question around. Can the person I have in front of me really trust that I am impartial if I have other symbols on me than those that the Swedish state stands for, i.e., the laws that we enact in here? Then one ends up in some form of crisis of confidence towards the one against whom an intervention is being made.
I think the answer nevertheless shows that the Minister takes the issue seriously when it comes to the uniform showing objectivity and impartiality. But the concluding remark becomes a bit strange: No measures are intended to be taken when the police obviously deviate voluntarily from the uniform requirement - because it is no longer a uniform if one mixes in other signs than those that are to represent the Swedish state.
The security department at the police has also stated that from an employee protection perspective, this can be directly inappropriate. Police officers are not immortal, and they are not armored. They can end up badly out there. One can provoke other actors in society simply through the clothing, and then the police officer who wears other symbols than those that actually represent the state may get shot for something completely different. That is what the security department has put its finger on.
I think it is important that the police do not deviate from the uniform requirements. I stopped working at the traffic police in 2007, so a lot has happened since then. But the only thing we were allowed to put on the uniform was the symbol for Skaraborg on the sleeve. It showed that we belonged to the unit in Skaraborg. That was the only thing that was permitted. Otherwise, one was not allowed to put on anything.
I think it is completely correct. One should not involve either religious or political symbols in the police uniforms. The uniform shall be neutral, as it states in the uniform regulations. Then, one has allowed headscarves, kippahs, and such things. Those who belong to these religious communities can use these types of signals in their private lives, but not when they stand as representatives of the Swedish state.
We must remember that the police have a monopoly on violence. They can use violence against other people. It must never be questioned that that violence represents precisely the Swedish state and nothing else. This is very important when we talk about the police uniforms.
Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)
Madam Speaker! If I, as a resident of Ångermanland, were to meet a police officer with "Skaraborg" on their arm, I am not at all sure that I would feel trust in objectivity and impartiality, as it is called.
Thank you to both the interpellor and the member from Västra Götaland! I would like to break this down and first address the principled question. I think it is a very justified principled discussion.
Someone might want to imply that the issue is being discussed for an inversely discriminatory purpose, that it would be illegitimate to discuss the issue because one would then be targeting people who, for example, have a certain faith - I cannot rule out that the interpellor has also encountered such objections. I would then like to emphasize that if one looks at our Nordic neighboring countries - the interpellor Richard Jomshof mentioned Norway himself - or for that matter across Europe, one sees that democratic states of law handle this issue in different ways.
In principle, I think it is a very legitimate view that the uniform should be exactly a uniform. What is then considered to be a part of this uniform looks a bit different in different places, which we can see if we compare Sweden with other countries. There is a gray scale for what can be accommodated within a uniform that is still regarded as a uniform even in a practical sense.
Another important matter that one must be careful with, regarding objectivity and impartiality, is that if you have a kippa on your head, this in itself is not an expression of you acting in an objective and impartial manner. Objectivity and impartiality are expressed in the exercise of authority, and I imagine that a police officer with a kippa on their head can very well act both objectively and impartially in their exercise of authority.
However, I imagine, if we are talking about the experience of impartiality and objectivity, that a number of different things in a police officer's actions can absolutely affect an individual's experience of trust or of having been treated objectively and impartially. I also do not exclude that a religious symbol for some could affect that experience. I think, in any case, that is a reasonable argument.
On the other hand – and that is why I nevertheless take a somewhat more pragmatic stance on the question – is this reasonably something that the police must consider themselves. If it is as the member from Västra Götaland said, that the police's security department has raised the issue, I imagine that a discussion is being held within the Police Authority and that a balancing act is being made.
I have not personally realized – you are welcome to enlighten me if I have missed something – that this discussion is primarily based on broad practical experience of this having been problematic de facto, rather than the issue being discussed to a large extent as a principled question. Under all circumstances, I believe that it belongs within the Swedish Police Authority, and that is where I have landed in my answer.
Richard Jomshof (SD)
Madam Speaker! Thank you for the answer so far, Minister of Justice!
Just the fact that we are discussing the issue here still highlights the nature of the problem. It would have been much simpler to just state and decide that we shall have a completely neutral police uniform. Then we would have avoided this discussion.
I would like to read something beforehand connected to how one reasons in Finland. A Swedish citizen named Merit Wager turned to the police board in Finland and asked whether they allow this kind of symbols there. I intend to read out parts of the answer she received, because I think it is very good.
A police officer in uniform represents the Police as an organization and it is not permitted to wear signs that show personal conviction or ideological or other equivalent orientation. The uniform may also not be used to promote own, personal goals.
The police's mission includes meeting people, working with people. When a citizen meets a police officer on the street, he/she shall, regardless of his/her own religious or any other orientation, be able to turn to the Finnish police without preconceived notions, for example, to report a crime.
The answer continues: "Using religious, ideological or other symbols in connection with a service uniform could provoke aggression and give rise to a negative attitude in the person who comes into contact with the police."
There are religions where the genders are not equal in accordance with Western democratic views. In Finland, the police treat everyone equally, regardless of religious or other beliefs, and women's status is protected in the constitution. Furthermore, the National Police Board aims to increase the number of women in leadership positions. The conflict between these interests would make it difficult for a police officer who publicly professes a religion where the genders are not equal. Furthermore, it would weaken the police organization from within, and its activities would also not look good externally.
Vidare: "If the Police were to allow the use of religious headcoverings, one would also need to allow the use of other symbols for ideologies, personal beliefs, or sexual orientations for the sake of equality. It would risk jeopardizing the citizens' belief that everyone is treated equally. It would weaken the police organization's reputation as a reliable and impartial authority."
I think the answer is very good and clear. I also think it is completely in line with what I myself believe regarding the issue.
In the answer, one points to another problem that I actually do not think has anything to do with this question – for me, it is only about the uniform as such. But different symbols mean different things to different people. I consider, for example, that the veil is an Islamist symbol. It symbolizes submission and division between men and women, and I find this to be extremely problematic. A citizen who, for example, has moved from a Muslim country and encounters that kind of police officer could actually develop a very negative attitude towards that officer, which could also mean a threat to the police in that regard.
If a police officer who has chosen to wear a kippa – now I do not think that it is a huge problem – were to enter into the kind of riots we, for example, saw in Påskås, I would argue that that officer's life would be in danger in a way that perhaps would not have been relevant without the kippa, precisely because of the kind of currents one can see in certain parts of our society.
I mean, therefore, that the issue contains other problems than just that one has a uniform that is not a uniform, in addition to the perspective on fairness that I myself have looked at previously and which I mentioned in my first post.
Let us take the veil as an example of this with the symbols. What is the Minister's opinion on it? If it now symbolizes a certain thing and we have citizens who have fled from that kind of oppression, and then one meets a police officer who has that kind of symbol on them—does the Minister understand that it could create very negative feelings towards the police? Does the Minister, in that case, think it would be a problem?
Thomas Morell (SD)
Madam Speaker! I thank the Minister for the answer.
This is a very important principled issue. The police officer who carries out an intervention out there must never be questioned. The uniform represents the Swedish state, not the individual who wears the uniform as clothing. That individual can, of course, have both political and religious views as a private person, but these must never come to expression in the role one has as a police officer. In that role, one must represent the state and the legislation one is tasked to handle.
When I worked in traffic, it was extremely important that one behaved correctly out there and had clean and tidy clothing. One had to change it from time to time, because it could be a bit dirty out on the roads. It was extremely important that one constantly behaved correctly and had representative clothing, that is to say, the uniform. One was, after all, the face outward toward the public in the role one had.
It could never be questioned that I did my job based on the legislation that I relied on – nothing else. Therefore, one cannot mix religious or political symbols into the uniform; it is completely wrong. I represent the laws that we have enacted in here and nothing else.
When I as a police officer meet the public out there, there must never, ever arise any doubt about what my purpose is with the measures I take against the individual. That happens if there are other symbols on my clothing.
Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)
Madam Speaker! Let me start with the answer that Merit Wager, was it, had received from the Finnish police authority and which Richard Jomshof read out. I am perhaps most delighted by the first half of the answer. I think the question's fundamental legitimacy lies in the question of what a uniform is and what symbols, clothes, or whatever it may be that can be considered to fall within the framework of something that, on the whole, is uniform.
As soon as we slide into the question of how this is perceived, it becomes undeniably subjective. I can imagine that a headscarf can be trust-inspiring rather than the opposite for some, and for others, it is precisely the opposite. Exactly how this affects the attractiveness of the profession, if one thinks that one religious symbol stands for certain values and the other for other values, and what one reads into this is naturally part of the principled question, but then we are on the question of how one personally experiences one or the other. I would like to stick to the first part, namely the principled question.
The question itself is valid. I have not perceived that this is a major practical problem in Sweden or that we can point to a large experience of this having created conflicts, mistrust, or breaches of trust. Based on a security approach, I imagine there is a huge difference between, on the one hand, standing up against stone-throwers and perpetrators of violence in an Easter riot and, on the other hand, engaging in internal service.
Simply put: There are several relevant aspects of the issue that I believe are best handled within the framework of the Swedish Police Authority. This is my conclusion. Principally, it is a very legitimate question, and I think it is good that the discussion is being held. It is obvious that democratic states of law handle it in slightly different ways. I think the arguments in our Nordic neighboring countries – several of them have been presented here – have good reasons for themselves. I still have great confidence in the police's ability to make the assessment regarding what kind of uniform should apply within the Swedish police.
Richard Jomshof (SD)
Madam Speaker! Regarding whether we have confidence or not in the police's ability to make that assessment, we are not quite in agreement. I obviously do not think that one manages to make a correct assessment. But that is my most subjective opinion.
When it comes to the question I pose in the interpellation, it has two parts. I agree that the first part, the principled question linked to the concept of uniform, is most important. The reason I include the second part is that I want to highlight my point. I am putting forward my view. I have very strong opinions about Islam and Islamism, for example.
That is exactly why I think that point is important. I can personally question a police officer who wears that kind of symbol, based on what I think about that religion, in the same way as I know there are very many voters in my party who have moved from Muslim countries and have very strong opinions connected to this. But there are surely, just as the Minister states, those who have the opposite opinion.
This is the main point itself; that is where we have the problem. That kind of discussion should not be allowed to occur when we talk about police officers who represent the state and the state's monopoly on violence. If we remove this possibility for all groups, the subjectivity and the feelings one can have towards that kind of police also disappear. It is also this that, in some way, is my main point.
I would also like to take the opportunity to praise the government in many respects. We have a lot in the Tidö Agreement that we are very much in agreement on, and I am completely convinced that we will deliver a lot of good policy in the area. But in this specific individual issue, I think the minister should probably rethink things a little bit.
Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)
Madam Speaker! I have, in essence, explained my position. I believe that the question has its principled justification and that it is a question that benefits from not, so to speak, being discussed in falsetto. Most questions here in the world benefit from being discussed in a calm and objective tone, and I think that this exchange of views is an expression of that.
To broaden the question, one can say that the uniform is, of course, a central part when it comes to building trust and creating confidence among the citizens. And to state the obvious: It is naturally a much broader question. To the extent that there are trust problems between the Swedish police and the citizens, I do not think that it is primarily related to this question, but rather that it is possibly other questions that are more central to address.
With this said, Madam Speaker, I would like to thank you for this debate. I think it raises an important principled question which, as was said, is obviously handled in different ways by democratic states of law, countries in the Nordic region and other countries. Already this, I think, underlines the question's legitimacy.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.