Response to interpellation 2022/23:314 on Quran burnings and Swedish freedom of expression

Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)

Madam Speaker! Richard Jomshof has asked me if I will take any general initiatives in connection with the Quran burnings and Swedish freedom of expression.

Let me begin by stating that our constitutionally protected freedoms and rights, such as the freedom of assembly and the freedom of expression, are extensive on good grounds. The permitted purposes for restricting both these freedoms are specified exhaustively in the Instrument of Government. It is stated there that these freedoms may be restricted for the sake of order and security at the gathering or demonstration or for traffic. Otherwise, they may only be restricted for the sake of national security or to counter a plague. If they are restricted, the restriction must always be proportionate - there must therefore be a balance between goal and means - and it may never be done solely on the grounds of political, religious, cultural, or other such views.

The Swedish Police Authority has a duty to guarantee the freedom of assembly and demonstration. The duty is far-reaching and means that the authority needs to take measures to secure the individual's constitutionally protected right to demonstrate. The Swedish Police Authority, with the support of the Public Order Act (1993:1617), examines questions regarding permits for public gatherings. The authority may only refuse such a permit in exceptional cases, in those cases where it is necessary with regard to the order or security at the gathering or, as a direct consequence of it, in its immediate vicinity or for traffic or to counteract an epidemic. A starting point is that other possibilities to prevent the hindrance are exhausted.

The Police Authority assesses each permit application based on the circumstances of the individual case and has the possibility to grant the conditions needed to maintain order and security at the gathering. The Police Authority makes these assessments independently, and how the authority decides in individual cases is a matter for the authority. If the individual receives a rejection decision, it can be appealed to court.

I currently have no intention of taking any general initiatives in this area, but I welcome a discussion on these issues, which are fundamental to our democratic constitutional state.

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

Richard Jomshof (SD)

Madam Speaker! I would like to begin by thanking the Minister for Justice that we were finally able to find a date for this interpellation debate.

In Sweden, we have an extensive freedom of opinion and expression. Burning the Quran is, regardless of what one thinks of the act itself, not criminal. This has also been established on more than one occasion.

I also want to emphasize the following. Defending others' right to express an opinion or to perform a certain action, naturally within the framework of the law, is not synonymous with standing behind the opinions or the expression of opinions themselves. There is definitely a long line of expressions of opinion, for example, that I do not understand why one wants to engage in or that I may find superfluous or even directly baffling. But I do not want to, and cannot, forbid them for that reason.

On April 4, the Administrative Court in Stockholm announced that the police made a mistake when they denied two Quran burnings in a short period earlier this year. In the middle of March, the Court of Appeal also ruled that the police's decision to cancel a demonstration in Norrköping last year in connection with the Quran riots was incorrect.

Ola Österling, who is a press spokesperson at police region Stockholm, has announced that it is considered that security outweighs our constitutionally protected freedoms and rights, which in this case can only mean, I argue, that the police consider it right to restrict the constitutionally anchored freedoms and rights if, for example, Islamists threaten with violence, regardless of what the Administrative Court or the Court of Appeal thinks about this.

But it doesn't matter what the police leadership says in this case, because it is clear what applies. Burning a Quran falls within the framework of what Swedish freedom of expression allows, and the police acted wrongly when they denied the demonstration permit.

Madam Speaker! In the answer to my interpellation, the Minister for Justice states: "The Police Authority makes these assessments independently, and how the authority decides in individual cases is a matter for the authority. If the individual receives a rejection decision, it can be appealed to court." This is a reasonable procedure; I agree with it. But now we have a de facto situation where the police choose to deny demonstration permits despite the fact that courts have clearly and explicitly stated on several occasions that the police have made a mistake when denying permits.

What do you do then? What do you do when the police, as in this case, ignore what a court says? I believe in every case that it is my duty as a member of the Swedish Riksdag, our highest decision-making body, to react. But I primarily pose the question: Is it not a government's task to react and act if and when this occurs? It would be interesting to hear the Minister for Justice's opinion on the matter.

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

ANDRE VICE TALMANNEN

I just want to remind, before the continued debate, that the content of agency decisions and individual cases may not be criticized in the chamber.

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

Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)

Madam Speaker! Once again - thank you, Richard Jomshof, for a very interesting and important question! It is clear that the protection of civil liberties and rights is important in itself. Then it is about how it, in order to be practical and effective, is used in connection with different decisions and how it is upheld in practice.

First, I must say that I of course have no possibility of going in and assessing how the Police Authority assesses the situation in individual cases. I also do not have a basis to, based on the various cases that Richard Jomshof brings up, say anything evaluative about how the police generally assess such questions. We have an order based on the fact that the police, within the framework of the legislation, make an assessment in the concrete case and that these cases can also become subjects of judicial review. Regarding the decisions that have been made recently, they are still subjects of judicial review, and I of course do not want to anticipate the conclusions of that.

The exceptions according to the constitutional provisions are broader than the provisions of the Public Order Act. National security is a reason that can justify infringements on these freedoms. A review is currently underway regarding, one could say, the balance between that question and order and security at public gatherings. It will be interesting to see how this turns out.

The second point that I also want to emphasize, which Richard Jomshof raises, is that it is, of course, part of defending freedom of expression and freedom of assembly that one also protects things that one fundamentally does not sympathize with.

I also think it has been important that now, when we have had a discussion about Quran burnings, we have also been able to show empathy for people who are deeply offended that what is the most sacred for them becomes the subject of this treatment in public. I know many people who would experience it in a corresponding way if a Bible were burned in the square in Örnsköldsvik, or similar. That empathy, understanding, and respect, I also think, one should be able to express as a politician. I know that Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson has done that, and I have full understanding and great respect for it.

At the same time, other things can also be true. We know that these Quran burnings, in combination with the disinformation campaign that has been directed against Swedish social services, where it is claimed that the Swedish state would kidnap Muslim children, have de facto been very driving when it comes to the security situation in Sweden. We still have, as it is called, the elevated terror threat strategically, level three on the five-point scale, but we know that the Swedish Security Service and other relevant authorities have calibrated that assessment – we have moved from being a legitimate target to being a prioritized target for acts of terrorism. There has also been a number of arrests, both in Sweden and abroad, which can be suspected to have connections with such an elevated threat.

So that is how the whole picture looks. I think it is extraordinarily important that we discuss all aspects of this: the fundamental protection of freedom and rights, which grounds are legitimate for restricting this in the concrete case, and the empathy for people who must endure being told things that they experience as offensive – for that is how our democratic order looks – but nevertheless, I think, one can expect respect from the surrounding society when one feels offended because of this.

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

Richard Jomshof (SD)

Madam Speaker! I agree with the Minister for Justice. It is clear that this is a broad issue and that there are many aspects. It is clear that the situation has been, and is, serious. But for that very reason, I want to assert that we must stand even more upright when this sort of situation arises and not back down.

The Minister of Justice himself says in the response that he welcomes that we have a discussion about this and that it is fundamental in our democratic rule of law. But if the police are allowed to break Swedish law repeatedly despite reprimands that they are doing wrong, at least I ask myself whether we have a democratic rule of law worthy of the name. It may seem harsh, but that is how I see it.

Dagens Nyheter recently had an article where they went through the entire sequence of events. There, there are several anonymous sources who claim that one has felt pressured, for example from Muslim groups but also from the previous Social Democratic government, to stop the Quran burnings.

On May 6 last year, the Administrative Court in Gothenburg announced that the police had made a mistake when it denied a demonstration permit during the Walpurgis Night weekend. In the judgment, the Administrative Court writes – and this is important – that the police may only restrict gatherings if it is the organizer who disturbs the order. And whatever we think of Paludan as a person and what he does, it was not he who threw stones or set fire to police cars or tried to kill police officers. Despite the Administrative Court's judgment, the police chose to do the opposite. Even though one had actually gone out and said that they would comply with that court ruling, they did not.

There are now a total of ten different judgments in five different administrative courts where it has been established that the police have made mistakes. That is still quite a lot. They primarily concern the spring and summer of 2022, and it is about the Quran burnings and the aftermath of them. But it doesn't end there. On February 18 this year, the police announced that they are totally banning this type of activity or demonstrations, even though there is no support whatsoever for this in, for example, the Public Order Act. This time it was after threats and pressure from Islamists abroad.

I naturally understand the seriousness of this; it is no easy situation. But precisely because of that, I mean that we must be upright. On April 4, the Administrative Court in Stockholm announced again that the police had made a mistake. This was the eleventh time the police received a setback.

I believe that the police are obstructing. I think it is serious. According to the article in Dagens Nyheter, the goal is that the police strive towards a judgment where they want to ban the Quran burnings completely. One thus becomes an activist. I find that extremely problematic, and I want to quote Tom Schultz-Eklund at Förvaltningsjuristerna i Sverige, who argues that the police have gone too far. He says that it is not a government authority's task to drive legal development in one direction or the other, but rather the police should enforce what is written in the law.

That socialists and Islamists want to restrict democracy does not surprise me in the least, but if there are indeed bourgeois politicians who want the same, I must admit that it surprises me. I also think it is tragic if the police choose to bow to Islamists and to threats and choose to actually deliberately break Swedish law, for that is how I see it.

I do not understand why the government is not acting in this matter. Somewhere, the ultimate responsibility must lie. There is still someone above the Police Authority who should be able to have an opinion, a perception, if it turns out that the police in this case are not following the judgments that we can see at eleven different administrative courts.

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

Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)

Mr. Speaker! Richard Jomshof makes a number of, I perceive, quite sweeping claims about both the Police Authority and, for one part, other politicians – in the first case that it would be characterized by a kind of general activism and in the second case that one would feel unhindered in wanting to limit democracy in various ways. One can well say that I am not prepared to sign off on either the first or the second claim.

When it comes to the police, they have an extraordinarily central task that follows from the legislation. It is they who, in the concrete case, shall make the assessment of whether this demonstration or expression of opinion shall be granted a permit or not. That task is in itself not an expression of any activism, but it follows from the legislation. The assessments that are to be made shall concern precisely order and security.

It is quite an important point that in each of the cases that Richard Jomshof refers to, it concerns unique circumstances in the concrete case and a rather momentary assessment regarding the possibility of maintaining order and security at a specific gathering, at a specific point in time and under the circumstances prevailing there and then. I do not have the basis to draw any general or sweeping conclusions about this, but I have a very great confidence in an order based on the police making their decisions locally and that, to the extent that anyone affected by this has objections, those decisions can be appealed. This is done, and then the courts shall do their job, which I perceive the courts do.

Then it concerned the security issues and about bowing to foreign Islamists. To what extent the cases we have seen recently have been assessed in light of the risks that have existed in connection with a concrete demonstration or manifestation and exactly which circumstances or which threat pictures have formed the basis for that assessment, I, in short, have no idea about, but it is the Swedish Police Authority that should have that. Those questions must then be examined more closely in the proper legal order, and that is in our courts.

I believe that there is sometimes too much anxiety regarding governments' ability to govern agencies. A government has large, constitutionally grounded and protected possibilities when it comes to leading and governing the activities in agencies. We have regulation letters, economic steering tools and agency dialogue, and we have the possibility to carry out specific government assignments. There is often a much wider framework and more different tools than what can sometimes emerge in the general debate. But there is a limit that is very clear, and that is to ensure that a proper distance is maintained from the assessments that our agencies make in individual cases.

I mean that, constitutionally speaking, it would be inappropriate for a Ministry of Justice or a Minister for Justice to step in close to the assessments made in the concrete cases at the Swedish Police Authority or any other agency. That is, in short, what I am not prepared to do. I mean that there is a very legitimate order here: the Swedish Police Authority makes decisions in the concrete cases. These can be legally reviewed by courts. Then one can analyze the outcome of judgments in different cases and ask whether there are any legislative changes that must be made in light of those judgments. That is the legitimate order, and that is what I want to stick to. Nevertheless, I welcome the debate.

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

Richard Jomshof (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Among the various reasons that the police have stated for wanting to deny the permit, it was first public order disturbances. There, they were given a setback. Then they said it was a lack of resources, and there they were given a setback. Then they said it was a lack of time, and there they were also given a setback. At some point, they said that the application had been submitted too late, and there they were given a setback, whereupon they went back to public order disturbances and were given a setback again. It is this that is the main problem here.

I have full respect for what the Minister for Justice says, and I have a full grasp of what the order is in our country, but the problem is when this is repeated. What happens if a political party is denied to hold demonstrations because the police say there is a lack of resources or lack of time, or that the application came in too late, or that there are public order disturbances, and this becomes recurring? It is very serious. If one can do it in this case, one can perhaps also do it in other cases, and then we have a problem. That is how I think one should view this issue.

Our democracy is unique. We are one of the twenty countries in the world that are considered full-fledged democracies. I believe that this kind of behavior is a step in the completely wrong direction, and that is why I think the issue is so incredibly important. Then, of course, I have incredibly great respect for what the Minister for Justice says and the stance on the issue. But if we have a situation where there are people who refuse to accept our legislation and our way of life, regardless of whether these people are inside or outside our borders, we must stand up for our constitution. We cannot escape the fact that these threats, which have not least existed abroad against Sweden, have been an explanation for why the situation has arisen. We must stand tall and say that we do not bow to that kind of threat.

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

Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)

Mr. Speaker! I am of the firm opinion that the Swedish constitutional protection in this area is extraordinarily strong. There is also no doubt whatsoever that the police have a very far-reaching obligation in their mission to safeguard the freedom of demonstration and freedom of expression. My firm opinion is that this is also being done, even when viewed over a longer period.

We can observe that the police guarantee the possibility for people to burn Qurans and the possibility for Nazis to demonstrate in Gothenburg just a few blocks from a synagogue. We could also see that courts protect pastors' opportunities to express themselves in an extremely derogatory manner about homosexuals, even if this admittedly does not concern this area.

Our legal order protects extensively, also expressions that a majority on very good grounds - if I may have my own personal opinion - can find very offensive. This is for me an important starting point. The freedom of demonstration and the freedom of expression in Sweden are extraordinarily extensive and are also upheld.

We can look at other democratic states governed by the rule of law, for example Finland. There, they have retained the old legislation, such as we had in Sweden in the early 70s, which does not allow violations of religious peace, for example, burning sacred scriptures, whether it is the Quran or the Bible. No one would say that Finland is a dictatorship for that reason or a country that extensively restricts fundamental freedoms and rights.

Exactly where the balance point should lie can be subject to different opinions in different legal systems. I nevertheless want to say fundamentally that I have great confidence in the order we have. The police must assess the order and security in the concrete cases.

All the circumstances that Richard Jomshof mentioned are usually circumstances that can affect order and security and possibly also the conditions for maintaining these. If the police want to argue in that way, it must be tested by the courts later. The courts have over time clarified where the boundaries lie. This I welcome and think is extraordinarily important.

I want to conclude by saying that it is very good and welcome that we are given the opportunity to discuss all relevant aspects of these issues here in the chamber and in the public debate. I believe this has a promoting effect when it comes to upholding the freedom of demonstration and the freedom of expression.

The interpellations debate was hereby concluded.

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