Response to interpellation 2022/23:250 on measures against anti-Swedish sentiment

Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)

Mr. Speaker! [The member] has asked me if I and the government will take any measures to combat anti-Swedish sentiment.

This is about the work against hate crimes, which is an extraordinarily important task. As I have previously highlighted to Pontus Andersson in a response to a written question, the Swedish Police Authority has an ongoing government mandate in this area. The mandate aims to increase the clearance and prosecution of hate crimes and other crimes that threaten democracy. The mandate also aims to increase the competence within the authority to investigate these crimes.

The Swedish Police Authority has recently submitted a partial report on the assignment. In this report, a number of ongoing operations are described that the authority carries out internally and together with other actors, including a major competence-enhancing initiative to detect more hate crime motives in police reports. In parallel, a close cooperation is ongoing with the Swedish Prosecution Authority to increase the prosecution in these types of cases. In every prosecutor's office in Sweden, there is at least one specially appointed hate crime prosecutor. This prosecutor shall lead the preliminary investigation regarding hate crimes as soon as there is a reasonably suspected person for the crimes. The Swedish Prosecution Authority also works continuously with competence-enhancing initiatives, including in the form of an annual hate crime conference and methodological support within the area.

Overall, it appears that the work of the law enforcement authorities regarding hate crimes is developing in the right direction, but it is important to continue this work and to continue developing this work with undiminished strength. It is, of course, a task that the government will follow very closely.

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

Pontus Andersson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! On February 22, I submitted a question to Minister of Justice Gunnar Strömmer regarding hate crimes against Swedes and on clarifying the possibility of convicting persons with anti-Swedish motives for hate crimes through amended legislation. The answer from the Minister of Justice was that it is already possible today, which I also mentioned in my written question, and that the Minister does not consider there to be a need for a clarification in the legislation in this regard.

As the Minister clarified in his answer, the possibility exists both in the hate crime legislation and in the law on incitement against a population group, but despite the fact that anti-Swedish sentiment is widespread and Swedes are in the minority in many parts of society, no person in Sweden has been convicted of a hate crime with anti-Swedish motives.

I therefore appreciate the Minister's answer regarding the competence-enhancing initiative at the Swedish Police Authority to detect more hate crime motives in police reports, and I hope that it hits the mark. The problem as I see it is, however, that it is primarily the Sweden-hostile hate crimes that are missed.

I appreciate that the Minister takes the issue seriously. Just the fact that we are standing here and debating it ensures that it is brought to attention, and I believe that it sends signals to those concerned to take this type of crime seriously. Even if the problem does not exist in the legislation itself, it exists somewhere else. The reasonable thing would be for Swedish courts in more trials to raise the question of whether the committed crime can be considered a hate crime even when the victim has a Swedish background.

In my written question, I raised the issue of the many robbery-related humiliations that have become increasingly common in Sweden during recent years, where many of the perpetrators, under humiliating circumstances, have expressed strongly anti-Swedish motives towards the victim. Likewise, a crushing majority of young robbery victims are persons with a Swedish background, and the perpetrator is almost always of a foreign background.

The problem, however, exists not only in cases of serious crime but also in everyday situations, and it affects not only people with a Swedish background but also many immigrants who have adopted a Swedish identity. As an example, we have the police report Områdesdokument Tjärna Ängar 2019, where it states: "The area police describe that Somali young girls are not allowed to socialize with Swedish girls. The reason is that the Swedish girls are described as 'horor' based on their lifestyle, including their clothing style."

Similar formulations are found in the police's area report from 2021. Police officers state that this attitude also exists in school environments. Another example from the 2019 report is a man in just Tjärna ängar who was treated so poorly because of his Swedish origin that he chose to move away from there.

Anti-Swedishness is a societal problem that the Sweden Democrats have highlighted in the Riksdag since our entry into parliament, but so far no government has acted on that specific issue. It is growing and affects both people with a Swedish background and people who have chosen to integrate into the Swedish community.

My perception, despite everything, is that the Minister for Justice shares my view that racism can happen to both, and everyone, hold on, that it is not a question of diffuse power structures but that racism actually is a dislike of another ethnic group or other ethnic groups and that it therefore also happens against Swedes in Sweden.

In light of the Minister for Justice's answer, I would like to ask if the Minister believes that the competence-enhancing initiative within the Swedish Police Authority will lead to more hate crimes with anti-Swedish motives being prosecuted than is the case now.

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

Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)

Mr. Speaker! I thank you for the opportunity to discuss these important issues.

I think it is very important to establish what is the basic principle in the Swedish legislation. The hate crime legislation is a criminal basis that covers all violations motivated by a desire to strike down, in various ways, on a national or ethnic origin, and that completely regardless of whether the national or ethnic origin is Swedish, African, American, or whatever it may be. It is the very starting point for the legislation.

In exactly the same way, the anti-discrimination legislation is based on this, and in exactly the same way, the basic constitutional principles of equal treatment are based on the fact that each individual should be protected against offensive treatment related to factors they themselves cannot influence.

This can also be seen in the way the hate crime legislation has been treated, not only here in the chamber but also in the committee: It has, so to speak, been confirmed that the legislation is therefore a protection for each and every one - every individual - regardless of ethnic origin. This means that if someone is violated or subjected to a hate crime because of their Swedish ethnicity, it is a hate crime to the same extent as if one had had a different ethnic or national background.

I think this is the first important thing to say, that is to say that it is a legislation for each and every one. That is one thing.

The second point concerns who has the primary responsibility for ensuring that this type of motive gains traction also during a judicial review. First, it is naturally the prosecutor who brings the charges and can point to a hate crime motive as something that, so to speak, should lead to a higher sentence. Then, it is clear that the person affected by a crime usually has a legal representative, who also has the opportunity in a court proceeding to point out this type of violation if it is judged that it concerns violations of the kind that have been criminal.

And with that focus on hate crime legislation that exists among law enforcement and judicial authorities, and with the way our legal processes are nevertheless structured – with prosecutors who are to bring charges when they see this type of crime, as well as lawyers and other representatives who have the task of taking the individual crime victim's starting point and safeguarding their interests during the trial – I imagine, therefore, that there are a number of different actors who have good opportunities to raise this type of motive if they perceive that it exists in the concrete case.

I also just want to say that we are now having this discussion based on the so-called humiliation robberies. It concerns robberies of young people with humiliating elements where, in addition to taking young people's mobile phones, jackets, computers, or whatever it may be – through the manner in which the robbery is carried out – one obviously wants to violate their crime victim in some kind of deeper sense. We know that this occurs. It is documented. That robberies of young people of that type can be brutal, not only in terms of humiliation but also in the form of physical transgressions of various kinds, we also know.

Let me just underline that that type of robbery against young people is something that the government - and I cannot imagine anything other than that it also applies to every party in this house - wants to strike back against with full force. It simply does not belong in a decent society.

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

Pontus Andersson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I have highlighted this example earlier, but I think it is necessary to do so again to specify what type of hate we are talking about.

In a robbery involving humiliation that occurred in Stockholm two years ago, it was two guys with a background in Africa who robbed, assaulted, and urinated on a Swedish guy while calling him things such as - excuse the choice of words, Mr. Speaker - fucking disgusting svenne and horunge. If the roles had been reversed, that is, if two guys with a Swedish background had done this to an African guy and called him derogatory things because of his skin color, I think we can agree that no one would have hesitated to say it was a hate crime. But when the roles look like in the case I mentioned, nothing happens regarding the hate crime part.

Mr. Speaker! For a very long time, Swedes – not least young people – have been fed propaganda saying that Swedishness does not exist and that Swedish culture does not exist. If one does claim that it exists, it is asserted that everything has come from the outside. People are deceived into believing that there is no Swedish people or that everyone who lives in Sweden is Swedish, and this happens from the very highest level. The former Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt claimed, for example, that it is only barbarism that is original Swedish and that all development has come from the outside.

Mona Sahlin stated that she believed what makes many Swedes envious of immigrant groups is that they have a culture, an identity, and a history – something that binds them together. She went on to ask herself what we have. Her answer was that we have Midsummer and such nerdy things.

Mr. Speaker! If people are fed these lies for far too long, and if no convictions are handed down, I believe that Swedish youth will see it as futile to report at all. Not even from the highest level has it been shown previously that one takes these types of issues seriously. I believe that we need to achieve a change in behavior, and I believe that an important step in this is to stand here and debate the issue.

As I said in my opening remarks: The anti-Swedish sentiment affects not only people with a Swedish background but also people who have chosen to integrate into the Swedish community. If we want to succeed in getting people who have come to our country to become a part of Sweden, they need to know what they are becoming a part of. It is at least for that reason why the denial of Swedish culture and history and Swedish traditions is so dangerous.

Sweden is a proud country with a magnificent history and fine traditions. Our culture, who we are and our ancestors' contributions on the battlefields, in the fields, in the home and in the industries, as well as their struggle for democracy, has made Sweden the country it is. Sweden is not what Sweden is by chance or because of luck, but it was our ancestors and older Swedes who built this country to hand it over to us.

In any case, Mr. Speaker, Sweden is the only place that the Swedes can call their home. We have nowhere else to go if we do not have to. Therefore, it is of the utmost importance that there are laws that protect Swedes from being subjected to anti-Swedish sentiment in Sweden and, not least, that these laws are actually followed in practice.

The Minister argues that these laws exist, and I agree with that. The Minister also argues that there is racism against Swedes. What measures does the Minister for Justice argue are required - on a broader level - for us to address the anti-Swedish sentiment in society?

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

Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)

Mr. Speaker! When Pontus Andersson goes off on broad arguments about alleged anti-Swedishness and denial of Swedish culture and Swedish traditions, I do not agree with him. On the other hand, I think it is extremely interesting to discuss the issue itself, namely hate crimes and how they should be handled. This applies regardless of what ethnic or national origin the person who is subjected to a hate crime has.

Pontus Andersson raised the very much noticed case in Solna and described the very humiliating and offensive elements in this robbery. I perceived, however, that there was an enormous response from Swedish society against these perpetrators and in support of the crime victim.

If we take this case as a starting point, I would like to say that it was a terrible case. It was a case where the perpetrators showed a brutality that no decent society can accept. I perceive that what came as a response from the wider society was an extraordinarily strong distancing and a very strong reaction against this. I did not experience that there was anyone who was prepared to stand up and defend the motives that may have lain behind this degrading treatment, and I think that is something one should take note of. I do not believe there is any acceptance at all for this, in any case not more broadly in society.

I also do not think that there has been an attempt from the state side to gloss over this. I received a Brå report from 2021 which is quite blunt in its description of what we are talking about. They attempt to define what these robbery-by-humiliation crimes entail. It is about a will to harm, intimidate, or violate the crime victims. In this report, they are very explicit that the majority of those suspected of these youth robberies are boys aged 15-17 who have a foreign background and who live in socially disadvantaged areas. Two-thirds of the suspects during the period 2015-2019 had a foreign background, while three-quarters of the victims during the same period had a Swedish background.

It is Swedish government agencies under the Ministry of Justice that, in a very objective manner, establish that it is in that way. If we are to be able to push back against this type of crime, we do not need to unnecessarily build mystery around the issues.

I think one can look at the legislation as it stands, look at the facts that are confirmed in various ways, for example by report backgrounds from our state authorities, and take that as a starting point to push for that this type of motive – if they can be established – should lead to punishment to a higher extent than before.

I think it is justified to ask why it does not occur to a greater extent than it does today that hate motives - or at least conceivable hate motives - against persons with a Swedish background also receive a consequence in the sentencing. I think it is worth that we discuss the issue. This is included in the assignments that the responsible law enforcement authorities have already received.

I naturally think that this warrants consideration for all actors in our legal processes who can influence this issue. This applies in particular to prosecutors and the lawyers and representatives who support the crime victims in these cases.

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

Pontus Andersson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I thank the Minister for Justice for this debate.

Those listening to this will have to make the final judgment, but I perceive it as the minister seeing the problem. I hope that during the term of office we can intensify this work, not least if the measures, for example skill-enhancing interventions, do not yield the desired effect.

Previous governments have, as said, been completely incapable of even touching upon the issue of anti-Swedishness. I believe it is about that one sees racism as a question of power, and with socialists' view on power, it is therefore very difficult for a white man to be a victim of this type of crime.

It is however probably also about the view on Swedishness - on who is Swedish and what is Swedish. If everyone who lives in Sweden is Swedish, how can one then as a Swede be subjected to anti-Swedishness in Sweden?

But the truth is that it is one thing to be a Swedish citizen and another thing to be Swedish. A Kurd who is a citizen of Turkey, for example, does not see themselves as Turkish. In the same way, one does not automatically become Swedish just because one receives papers stating that one is a citizen of Sweden. On the other hand, one can, by making an effort, become Swedish over time.

But how can one become a part of Sweden if we have anti-Swedish structures in society, as in Tjärna ängar, where Somali girls are not allowed to socialize with Swedish girls? When leading politicians question – or, above all previously, questioned – the anti-Swedish sentiment and whether there is a Swedish culture and neglect our history and our traditions, how are people who have come to Sweden then to know what they should adapt to?

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

Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)

Mr. Speaker! There was a rather broad discussion at the end about everything from citizenship to honor culture and other issues.

My starting point is that it is obvious that there is a Swedish history and a Swedish culture. I perceive that we are very many citizens who live in it, who stand up for it, and who also want it to be open for people who come to Sweden.

Let me return to what is the basic chord in the hate crime legislation. Completely regardless of history, culture, and at what point one has come to a country – whether you have been here forever or have just arrived in Sweden – the entire starting point in the legislation is that it is you as an individual and your protection against offensive discriminatory treatment that is the point, and this, therefore, completely regardless of what ethnic or national origin you have.

This is, as has been said, the basic chord in the anti-discrimination legislation and the entire idea in the individual freedom and rights protection in our constitutions. It is also the entire starting point for the hate crime legislation.

Each one of us, even those of us who are middle-aged and born in the country with Swedish ethnicity, has a protection against offensive treatment in the form of hate-driven humiliation in connection with a robbery or other. This basic agreement we must be extremely afraid of.

The crime we are talking about is, regardless of motive, I was about to say, extraordinarily brutal in its degrading elements. It goes a long way to do what we are doing now and increase the penalties for this type of robbery and ensure that they are also increased in such a way that it is always imprisonment as the minimum sentence with mandatory detention. It will create a proper pressure against those people, regardless of ethnic background, who engage in this type of degrading crime.

The interpellations debate was hereby concluded.

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