Response to interpellation 2022/23:126 on equality data and combating hate crimes
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
M argues that the police have high levels of ambition and that there are specific hate crime units 1. M emphasizes the importance of robust legislation where authorities intervene without blindfolds 2. M argues that it is practically and principally difficult to introduce equality data because the state has historically avoided sorting people 2. M argues that hate motives can go in different directions, but that it is dangerous for the state to systematically request ethnic origin 3. M argues that knowledge can be obtained through case law analyses instead of state sorting 4. MP wants more knowledge and equality data based on voluntary surveys 5 6. MP argues that structurally collected data is needed to get hard facts on the patterns of racism 6. MP argues that equality data is an important tool to address structural issues 7. SD argues that hate crimes against Swedes are a widespread problem that is not visible in the statistics due to structural deficiencies 8 9. SD argues that this can be addressed through better statistical foundations 9.
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! I have been asked whether I and the government will task the police with improving their hate crime work and whether I will establish a support line for those affected by hate crimes.
The figures that emerge in the Crime Prevention Council's in-depth reports on antisemitic, Islamophobic, and most recently, afrophobic hate crimes are distressing. The same applies to the information in the latest report that the youngest victim was only seven years old. Brå's hate crime statistics and in-depth analyses provide us with urgent knowledge about both the vulnerability that different groups of people experience in Sweden and the consequences it has.
The Swedish Police Authority has a high level of ambition in the work against hate crimes. There is a national contact point for these issues as well as designated democracy and hate crime investigators in all police regions. For some years now, the Swedish Police Authority has also established special hate crime units in Stockholm, Gothenburg, and Malmö, for the purpose of improving the work with this type of crime.
The Swedish Police Authority has received a mandate aimed at increasing the investigation and prosecution of hate crimes and other crimes that threaten democracy, as well as increasing the competence within the authority to investigate these crimes. In the final report of the mandate, which shall take place no later than December 2023, the Swedish Police Authority shall report the results of its ongoing measures to combat hate crimes and other crimes that threaten democracy. The Swedish Police Authority shall also describe how cooperation with authorities and organizations is conducted, as well as how the Swedish Police Authority ensures a functioning dialogue with affected persons.
Brottsofferjouren has a national support line that provides information and compassionate support to crime victims, their relatives, and witnesses. People who have been subjected to hate crimes can also call there. Brottsofferjouren's activities are financed through, among other things, state grants.
That people are subjected to verbal attacks and violence because of their skin color or religion is, of course, unacceptable. That a large proportion of those who are subjected to this are children and young people makes the issue even more pressing. The work against hate crimes is very important, and the government follows the issue closely, not least through the ongoing government mandate to the Swedish Police Authority. As said: We look forward to the upcoming final report of that mandate. On the other hand, at the current time, there are no plans to establish a specific support line for persons affected by specifically hate crimes.
Annika Hirvonen (MP)
Madam Speaker! In 2021, we in Miljöpartiet, when we sat in the government, gave the Crime Prevention Council, Brå, the task of producing a third part in a started series of reports highlighting racism in Sweden. The first two reports dealt with antisemitism and Islamophobia respectively, and Brå's new study highlights afrophobic hate crimes and makes visible what many have witnessed for a long time, namely how hate crimes occur openly on streets and squares, within healthcare, and in schools and workplaces. Verbal assaults, where the n-word and other derogatory expressions are used, are common. In almost one-fifth of the reports, violence occurs. These results are alarming.
The Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention has also highlighted the problem that we lack equality data in Sweden, i.e., knowledge that sheds light on vulnerability to racism linked to religion, skin color, or ethnicity. Today we have very extensive gender-disaggregated statistics but also many studies and surveys - including the national safety survey and youth surveys - where the respondents mention, for example, sexual orientation, trans identity, and other aspects. But precisely when it comes to racism, these questions are not asked today. That makes the study from Brå particularly valuable, but we would need a more comprehensive picture of how racism affects people. It is about people being treated worse because of religion, skin color, or ethnicity.
That is why I want to ask the Minister for Justice if he will take any initiatives to generate more knowledge and develop equality data, for example within the framework of the national safety survey, which the police conduct and which is a very important work that also we politicians here in the Swedish Riksdag use to make decisions and prioritize.
The issue of equality data was previously investigated by the Equality Ombudsman in 2012, and the conclusion then was also that one could and should introduce this in Sweden to achieve greater visibility in the statistics and a clearer knowledge base. Sweden has also been urged by EU and UN bodies to introduce equality data specifically linked to racism, where knowledge is deficient.
The question is concrete: Will Gunnar Strömmer work for this?
Adam Marttinen (SD)
Madam Speaker! The discussion on hate crimes has been particularly relevant during the previous parliamentary term. We had an extremely large number of media-covered cases in our country, where many people were subjected to hate crimes with extreme elements of humiliation. In the political debate, it came to be summarized as humiliation robberies. I probably do not need to remind those listening to this debate more precisely what that entailed.
What was a common thread in all these highlighted cases was that it was Swedes who were the victims of crime and that there were very clear hate motives against just Swedes from the perpetrators' side. What was also a common thread in all these highlighted cases was that the indictments did not include the hate crime motive, but the individuals were only indicted for the other crimes that were part of the context.
We have had many debates with the previous government, which has denied that specifically anti-Swedish hate crimes have been a widespread problem in our society. They refer to statistics from the Swedish Crime Prevention Council stating that only 1 percent of the reported hate crimes were cases where the crime victims had Swedish nationality. Thus, it was also claimed that there was no widespread problem.
I want to assert that the problem is more widespread than the statistics from the Crime Prevention Council show and that there is a structural problem, perhaps within the police, within the prosecutor's office, or even in the legislation, when it comes to how one chooses to interpret the concept of hate crimes and when one considers it justified to include hate motives in the assessment of the cases where it occurs.
It is entirely obvious that in the assessment of the cases highlighted, no consideration was taken of the victims' vulnerability specifically regarding hate crimes. Therefore, I would like to take the opportunity in this debate to ask the Minister whether the Minister considers that any action should be taken somewhere, either through legislation or through the assignment to the police mentioned here, to train the hate crime units, particularly when it concerns Swedes' vulnerability to hate crimes. Does the Minister consider that there is any reason to highlight just this aspect when it comes to hate crimes in the legislation?
Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)
Madam Speaker! Thank you very much, Annika Hirvonen, for the question! There are interesting arguments at the bottom of that question.
What right do individuals have in relation to hate motives? Yes, it is the right not to be subjected to crimes based on such a motive. All crimes are naturally serious, but if the motive additionally has to do with your skin color, religious belief, ethnic background, or something else, we perceive as a democratic state governed by the rule of law that there is a special ground for protection. Therefore, it is extraordinarily important that there is robust legislation surrounding such things and that those in law enforcement agencies, in all other parts of the judicial authorities, and for that part in society at large, are very aware and vigilant when it comes to that type of crime.
Let me also take up Adam Martin's question here. I am also convinced that the pattern when it comes to hate crimes can sometimes be a bit more nuanced or complex than our often quite polarized debate wants to convey. We know that hate crimes can be committed, for example, between different ethnic minorities. It can also, I imagine, be a driving force in relation to someone who has an ethnic Swedish background.
Then it is not up to the Minister for Justice, I argue, to give instructions to law enforcement authorities to pay more attention to a certain type of hate crime than others. It is good that we have the debate, but that must suffice as a general signal from our democratic institutions. Having a robust legal and judicial protection against hate crimes is extraordinarily important, and law enforcement agencies must, without any blinders, intervene against all types of hate crime.
When it comes to the question of statistics, it is perhaps still not a coincidence - I do not say this for the sake of being sarcastic - that what Annika Hirvonen is calling for does not exist after eight years of a red-green government.
I believe that one can have different ideological starting points in this—I was about to come to my own. We can begin by stating that it is practically very complicated. One can look at what data is available for each. We know that at Skatteverket there is data on gender and citizenship and that there is data on your parents' country of birth. Those are the objective factors, if one may use that expression, that are registered about us regarding the type of factors we are talking about now.
Unlike other countries, for example the USA, Sweden has historically been extraordinarily firm in the view that the state should not engage in registration at a more calibrated level than this, nor provide systems that in other ways encourage a sorting of people based on the factors that we ourselves cannot influence. They undoubtedly have relevance, but this is what one can say the anti-discrimination legislation, hate crime legislation, and other such measures are intended to protect.
I have a straight answer to Annika Hirvonen's question to me – whether I intend to take any action to achieve equality data. The answer to that question is no. For me, it is based, among other things, on practical experience. Even the authorities, Brå and others, whom Annika Hirvonen mentions, point out that they themselves perceive it would be very complicated to do this. But for me, it is also actually a moral or principled issue. I believe that if one is to have a consistent equal treatment line in a country based on non-discrimination and equal treatment, it is extraordinarily difficult to initiate or encourage systems that, after all, are based on sorting.
Annika Hirvonen (MP)
Madam Speaker! It feels very urgent that we can have this debate to also clear up some confusions. To begin with, I want to clarify that we in Miljöpartiet do not advocate for registers or registration regarding these issues. What we advocate for is equality data based on voluntary and anonymous surveys, where self-identification is the starting point. All these criteria – voluntariness, anonymity, and self-identification – are necessary so that the equality data does not have the negative consequences that Gunnar Strömmer raises.
We see how this can be used already today. One can, for example, look at the large youth survey. There, the respondents can choose whether they want to fill in, for example, information about sexual orientation. It is voluntary and anonymous. And it is based entirely on the person's self-identification. What the results can show is whether young people's living conditions differ based on which sexual orientation or trans identity they have stated they have. It is valuable for us politicians and decision-makers.
There are also many companies that use equality data to improve their businesses. With just such voluntary and anonymous surveys with self-identification as a basis, they can find out if there are differences in how one perceives, for example, the culture at the company and take adequate measures.
Sweden already has equality data in practice. Some parts are in the personal identity number, as Gunnar Strömmer points out, for example gender. Other parts are in other public statistics, and some questions we ask in anonymous, voluntary surveys.
The blind spot is truly racism. Parents' country of birth does not, in an adequate way, capture factors such as skin color, religious conviction, or even ethnicity.
I think Brå's latest study on Afrophobic hate crimes is truly a wake-up call. There are major societal challenges here. This covers practically all sectors of society, and it affects children already of school age.
Increased knowledge, which is more structurally gathered, would also be valuable so that we would not get stuck in discussions about what are perceptions or a polarized debate. We would then get hard facts.
It has been incredibly important in the work for Sweden to become more equal that we have stopped talking about how it is legitimate in the individual case for, for example, a woman to have a lower salary than her male colleague. One can point to a lot of individual cases and individual situations, and every time one can find an explanation. But when one looks at the patterns and structures, one can move away from the discussion about what are anecdotal exceptions or examples and actually focus on the large structural problem areas that exist when it comes to racism in our society.
I want to urge the Minister of Justice to take in the new knowledge regarding equality data and consider this.
Adam Marttinen (SD)
Madam Speaker! When the Crime Prevention Council is mentioned, I can take the opportunity to say that there is a deficiency in the investigations that have been conducted when it comes specifically to hate crimes against Swedes.
The statistics that I referred to earlier are the statistics that the former Minister for Justice referred to when he considered that there was no widespread problem in Sweden with hate crimes against Swedes, namely that only 1 percent of the cases with hate crime motives that are reported include hate crimes against Swedes.
I want to point out that there is another problem in all of this, namely that either the police or the prosecutor do not take into account the hate crimes that Swedes are subjected to. This also makes the statistics for reported crimes misleading regarding how widespread this problem actually is in our country. Not least in all the medially highlighted cases where hate crime motives against Swedes clearly occurred, this very consideration was missing in the prosecution from the prosecutor's side.
For my part, this speaks a clear language. There is a structural problem here in Sweden. One can access this through better statistical data. It can also become a question to the Minister for Justice: Does the Minister for Justice consider that a special assignment is needed to highlight anti-Swedish sentiment and hate crimes against Swedes in order to better understand the issues? My second question is: Does the Minister for Justice really not consider that a special assignment is needed for the police or prosecutors regarding the fact that they should consider hate crime motives even when Swedes are subjected to hate crimes?
Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)
Madam Speaker! I will take the last one first. I think it is very justified to speak about hate crimes just generally, regardless of what ethnic affiliation the crime victim has. I believe that most, based on a general human experience, can grasp that hate motives can strike in different directions. It can, of course, strike from representatives of the majority population against minorities of different kinds. It can be hate motives between individuals who belong to different minorities. And naturally, one can also be driven by a hate against someone who is ethnically Swedish, as Adam Marttinen points out. On the other hand, I have not considered any specific missions in that part, but I think it is completely legitimate and reasonable to raise that aspect of the question.
When it comes to the question of the statistics, I may still have to repeat what I said initially. I do not believe it is a coincidence that we are standing here discussing the issue despite eight years of a red-green government. There are reasons why governments have not given this type of assignment to, for example, agencies.
I, who fundamentally have a liberal basic chord in my view of society, find it intuitively difficult to view people in groups, patterns, structures, and collectives. But at the same time, there is no doubt that there are structures in society that affect a multitude of different things. It is clear that statistics that can show patterns on a general level are helpful for those who want to do something and break structures.
My principled, experiential, and perhaps even practical standpoint regarding specifically ethnic background is that I believe it is extraordinarily dangerous to use sorting as a tool in work concerning equal treatment. I want to emphasize that I have perceived that Annika Hirvonen is not requesting that we should register our race with more factors with Skatteverket without the method being precisely voluntariness, self-identification, and so on. Nevertheless, it is an extraordinarily dangerous path for me to take for the state to systematically request people's ethnic background in various respects, even if it occurs with self-identification, because it runs counter to the entire idea of anti-discrimination, equal treatment, objectivity, and impartiality.
That brings us to the practical problems even with such a method. On the one hand, I believe it is possible that the value of statistics based on subjective experiences rather than objective factors can be questioned in many cases; on the other hand, it must be the case that if this statistics—which would be based on self-identification—is still to show patterns at that level, it must nevertheless involve factors that are so uniform or consistent that they can be systematized almost in an automatic way. Nevertheless, even a self-identification will in some way be based on hooking into factors determined by others. This is a practical point that Brå has also raised.
For me, it is a matter of principle, and I have full respect for the fact that one can have different views depending on one's view of society. But I believe it is very dangerous, even if it is based on voluntariness and self-identification, for the state to initiate sorting based on ethnic background. I believe that the practical implications of it are difficult to oversee and potentially very dangerous. Therefore, my answer remains no despite everything.
Annika Hirvonen (MP)
Madam Speaker! The objections that the Minister for Justice raises regarding equality data have indeed blocked an exploration of these methods. But there has been much development both within the business sector and within academia.
The need is glaringly clear: We lack systematic knowledge about racism in Swedish society. Studies such as Brås report on Afrophobic hate crimes are incredibly important and valuable, and what is truly dangerous is if we do not act against racism. Racism has consequences. It breaks down school children's desire to go to school and learn and develop, and it breaks down the self-esteem of people. In the worst case, racism leads to death, as in the example where healthcare personnel dismissed a man's serious medical condition as "cultural fainting."
We have much to work with regarding racism. Knowledge of what racism looks like and in which areas the greatest problems exist are important tools for addressing structural issues with racism in the same way that knowledge of how men and women have been treated differently has been completely central in the work for equality.
I am convinced that it will not be easy to introduce equality data. I am convinced that there will be a need for many years of development and refinement to achieve the best possible results. But I am convinced that it is possible and that it is an important tool for the work against racism in Sweden.
Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)
Madam Speaker! Let us first frame what we agree on, and that is that racism is terrible. It lies within every decent democratic society's mandate and task to counteract it with all its might. That can be said regardless of what form it takes and whom it is directed against. It is clear that there are structural problems and patterns that repeat and that hit certain groups more than others, but I still perceive fundamentally that it is a matter of an individual freedom and rights protection that each person should be protected against racism or discrimination of various kinds.
It is one thing. The other is that I really do not oppose people trying to acquire systematic knowledge on the issue, but the question is which methods should be used to acquire that knowledge. I believe one can get quite far in the understanding of hate crimes by, for example, going in-depth into a case law analysis of the cases where we have had legal proceedings that specifically concern hate crimes. One can get far through a comparative study where one compares that type of crime in Sweden with other comparable countries. I also imagine that the type of investigations already being conducted, such as Brå's reports which Annika Hirvonen mentioned, are intended to increase our knowledge on this.
What I, however, do not feel addressed by is the idea that the state should in one way or another push for a sorting or a request where individuals are to disclose or sort themselves based on the factors that the hate crime legislation and the discrimination legislation are intended to counteract.
I believe it is a dangerous path to take. That it is done by various individual actors in the business sector and academia, one can have views on, and I have those as well. But despite everything, it is a different matter than what the state authorities do for something, and that path I am not prepared to take.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.