Response to interpellation 2022/23:43 on lifestyle as a basis for prosecution
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
M intends to appoint an inquiry to reintroduce the deportation of foreigners due to lack of integrity 1. M believes that the inquiry should analyze the legal conditions for deportation in cases of association with criminal or extremist organizations as well as environments that threaten Swedish values 1. M emphasizes that "unambiguous remarks" is an established concept and that the inquiry should ensure legal certainty 2. M believes that integration has failed under S-rule and that persons who do not wish to integrate or follow Swedish norms must be investigated 2 3. S questions what "unambiguous remark" and "disrespecting the Swedish population" mean and demands concrete examples 4 5 6. S believes that the government cannot postpone the answer on what these terms mean until an inquiry 6.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Statsrådet Maria Malmer Stenergard (M)
Madam Speaker! Anders Ygeman has asked the Minister for Justice which lifestyles he considers so reprehensible that they should result in prosecution and thus constitute grounds for deportation, in what way he envisions these "unambiguous remarks" should be collected and registered, if he considers that these lifestyles should also entail remarks and consequences even for Swedish citizens, and if he intends to take any measures based on his standpoint.
Anders Ygeman has also asked in what way the Minister for Justice means that "in practice insulted the Swedish population" shall constitute a basis for prosecution and thus for deportation, and if he intends to take any measures based on his standpoint.
The work within the government is distributed in such a way that it is I who shall answer the interpellation.
In accordance with the Tidö Agreement, the government intends to appoint an inquiry which shall, among other things, analyze the conditions for reintroducing the possibility of deporting foreigners due to lack of conduct. The inquiry is one of several measures in the government's initiative to achieve a responsible migration policy. The current point in the Tidö Agreement does not concern Swedish citizens.
According to the Tidö Agreement, the investigation shall, among other things, analyze the legal conditions for deporting foreigners due to lack of conduct based on the Swedish Constitution, EU law, the European Convention, and other international law obligations.
According to the Tidö Agreement, the investigation shall also produce legislative proposals to, to the extent possible, reintroduce a possibility to deport foreigners due to lack of integrity. This could, for example, involve association with a criminal, violent, or extremist organization or other environments that threaten fundamental Swedish values.
What may form the basis for deportation due to lack of integrity and what the expression shall encompass is for an investigation to analyze and assess. The Tidö Agreement does not state that prosecution shall be required for a lack of integrity to be considered present. It will also be a matter for the investigation to take a position on which evidentiary requirements shall apply and how the rule shall be formulated so that it can be applied in a legally secure manner.
I will act to ensure that our common commitments in the Tidö Agreement are upheld.
Anders Ygeman (S)
Madam Speaker! I thank the Minister for the answer. This is now the second interpellation debate where we do not manage to have a discussion on what the interpellation is about. Instead, we are discussing other grounds for movement for the proposals in the Palace Agreement.
In the previous round of interpellations, we learned that the reason why prostitutes but not sex buyers are mentioned is that they were mentioned in the preparatory works. One then wonders why it was not written into the Palace Agreement. It would have been a simple way to explain why it is said that it should be possible to deport prostitutes but not sex buyers. But that is not what this debate is primarily about.
This is about two other concepts that are included in the palace agreement. The Minister and I can agree that involvement with a terrorist organization or an organization with a seriously extremist wing can lead to deportation.
But here it is about other concepts, Madam Speaker. I thought that we could discuss them instead and find out more about the grounds behind them. The first is "an unambiguous remark". What is that? What does the Minister envision as an unambiguous remark on someone's lifestyle?
How does the Minister intend for these unambiguous remarks to be recorded, and how are they to be examined? That was the reason I asked the Minister for Justice, but I assume that since the question has been handed over to Minister Malmer Stenergard, she will be able to answer the question.
The second concept is "disrespect the Swedish population". What does that mean?
On 30 April 1967, Swedish police seized 61 graphic prints by the artist Carl Johan De Geer and his artwork Skända flaggan. He was sentenced on 7 June for incitement and desecration of Swedish and foreign national symbols. The question is whether Carl Johan De Geer, for this act, would risk deportation under the government's policy. Is it this type of disrespect toward the Swedish population that the castle agreement aims at? If not, could the minister mention a single act that could be counted as a disrespect toward the Swedish population and which could therefore in the future constitute grounds for deportation from Sweden?
Statsrådet Maria Malmer Stenergard (M)
Madam Speaker! Anders Ygeman spoke in his interpellation about prosecution due to crime and about it being a matter of lifestyles so reprehensible that they should be able to result in prosecution. Here I want to be very clear that there is an important distinction. Individuals who are prosecuted due to crime can, under certain conditions, also be deported because of the crime for which the individual has been convicted. In the Tidö Agreement, no connection is therefore made to prosecution for the purpose of a lack of conduct being deemed to exist, and here we come to an important point.
As I said earlier: After many years of S rule, the social development in Sweden has progressed so far that there are reasons, which we establish in the Tidö Agreement, to investigate whether there should be more grounds for deportation than those provided by current legislation.
I believe that most are in agreement that we have failed with integration for many years. If one has many people who find themselves in Sweden without wanting to integrate and become a part of society and instead actually act contrary to the basic principles that apply to the Swedish democratic society, it is a major problem. If integration is to work, people who live here actually also need to want to become a part of Swedish society and strive to the utmost to do so as quickly as possible and follow Swedish norms and values.
If, on the other hand, someone does not have such a will and is in environments linked to, for example, criminal gangs, clans or extremist groups and does not intend to change that, we must ask ourselves whether the person should really remain in Sweden.
Exactly how this is to proceed, as well as how it works in other countries, the investigation shall look into more closely. I do not want to, and do not intend to, anticipate the investigation. I note that this is a piece of legislation that has existed in Sweden previously.
When it comes to the wording regarding the assessment of conduct itself, I want to say that "unambiguous remarks" is an established term that has been used in the preparatory works for the Aliens Act in a number of places. We perform conduct assessments, for example, when we are to assess whether a person should be granted a permanent residence permit and when we are to assess whether a person should be granted citizenship. In those cases, we look at a number of different factors.
What we have done in the Tidö Agreement is, therefore, to point out factors that previously could constitute grounds for deportation due to lack of integrity. What can constitute grounds for this in the future must, naturally, be investigated thoroughly in an inquiry. Just as it has been previously, this assessment shall be conducted in a legally secure manner, and it shall be conducted by a court.
Anders Ygeman (S)
Madam Speaker! If the motives are as clear as the Minister expresses, perhaps the Minister can give at least one example? What does it mean to disregard the Swedish population?
I may be inexperienced, but I actually don't quite remember what the preparatory works looked like regarding the requirements for insulting the Swedish population or what could come to be covered. I took up an example of something that trumps this because it actually led to prosecution in Sweden, namely the incident with the artist Carl Johan De Geer's artwork Skända flaggan. This incident should stand higher up. Not only were the requirements for insulting the Swedish population fulfilled—possibly—but the artist was also prosecuted.
One becomes curious, and since the Minister did not answer, I ask the question again: Could Carl Johan De Geer, in the Minister's opinion, have been deported for having insulted the Swedish population? If not, why? And is there any other example of acts of insult of the Swedish population that should lead to a person being deported?
It is one thing for a person to be tried in court against legal requirements. It is another thing when one goes beyond the legislation that one has for things that have not been tried as crimes in court.
Since I assume that you in the government are now sitting and working on the preparatory works for this investigation, I also assume that you have discussed various examples back and forth and how you are going to write in the directives. Therefore, it could be interesting for the voters to find out what it means to disregard the Swedish population.
Statsrådet Maria Malmer Stenergard (M)
Madam Speaker! It is somewhat interesting that the former Minister for Migration, Anders Ygeman, is doing his level best to somehow disparage something that, after an investigation, is intended to become an answer to a problem that he himself has been involved in and contributed to.
Anders Ygeman also brings up questions about the collection and registration of someone's lifestyle without there being a single word about this in the Tidö Agreement. I do not, as is known, intend to anticipate the investigation. I do not intend to make hypothetical assessments at this stage, but this must take its course. I believe that the former minister is fundamentally quite aware of that. An investigation must be allowed to turn over and examine the difficulties and opportunities that exist with a piece of legislation like this.
Of course, everyone is free to criticize the government and the proposals it puts forward. I am, as I said, grateful that I live in a country where this is fully possible, but I believe it gives the voters more if one has a constructive debate. I look forward to such a debate with the Social Democrats moving forward.
I note in this context that Anders Ygeman does not say anything critical about the proposals in the parts aimed at association with criminal organizations, networks or clans and participation in violent or extremist organizations or environments. Hopefully, this is because he now sees the same negative social development as the government does, namely that these groupings have an all too great role.
This government will do everything in its power to address the exclusion that the Social Democratic government has left behind. Extensive measures will be required to ensure that those who have come to Sweden and want to become a part of the Swedish community also do so. Measures will also be required in relation to those who do not want to be a part of the Swedish community. Sweden must get its integration and migration policy in order.
I ask Anders Ygeman for a little patience until the directives and the result of the investigation have arrived.
Anders Ygeman (S)
Madam Speaker! I have great patience when it comes to both the directives and the investigation. We Social Democrats will, of course, take a position on the proposals after having seen this investigated and turned into proposals by the government. It is somewhat difficult to take a position on proposals when not even the minister himself can provide a single example of when the government's proposals could be applied. Even less is it possible to take a position on whether this would have any effect at all on migration policy when the minister cannot give a single example.
We have now had six exchanges - I believe - regarding this paragraph in the Tidö Agreement without the Minister having been able to provide a single example. It is one thing to ask questions of me in opposition, Madam Speaker, but the Minister has actually signed this agreement and probably been involved in formulating it. She therefore cannot push this off onto the commission.
What is the basis for that someone who insults the Swedish population should be deported? What type of events is it that one has envisioned when formulating this? The investigation cannot find out, but the government must be able to answer. This is the basis for the government's policy.
Madam Speaker! The Minister has one contribution remaining after two interpellation debates. Can we get an example? What does it mean to disregard the Swedish population?
Statsrådet Maria Malmer Stenergard (M)
Madam Speaker! Just as we have different interpretations of the Tidö Agreement – I am very glad that it is I and not Anders Ygeman who have the right of interpretation – we probably also have different interpretations of the quality of my answer. I have great respect for that.
What I also have great respect for is the Swedish tradition that we investigate legislative proposals in a thorough manner, take into account the views that come in along the way, and present well-elaborated legislative proposals. When one does not work that way, it does not turn out well. One example was when the upper secondary school legislation was submitted and the Council on Legislation (Lagrådet) stated that the limit had been reached. That lesson perhaps Anders Ygeman should also have learned.
Once again, I ask for patience. This is a task that must be carried out in a very serious manner. I ask to be allowed to return and look forward to the debate when directives, investigations, and eventually possible legislation are presented.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.