Response to interpellation 2023/24:144 on terrorist sympathies within parliamentary parties

Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)

Madam Speaker! Tobias Andersson has asked me what measures I and the government intend to take to map terror sympathies in political parties in Sweden and whether I and the government intend to take any measures to curb terror sympathies within political parties in Sweden.

Let me begin by stating that the government unreservedly condemns the terrorist group Hamas's attacks in Israel. These are matters of extremely brutal and indiscriminate attacks on civilian men, women, and children. The government has also demanded that all persons taken as hostages be released immediately. I can simultaneously state that the Palestinian civilian population is now undergoing very severe suffering and that the protection of civilians must be ensured in accordance with international humanitarian law.

The government views all forms of and expressions of terrorism very seriously. Terrorism is one of the most serious threats to democracy, the free exercise of human rights, and society's social and economic development. Recently, we in Sweden have seen demonstrations in support of the terror group Hamas where threatening and hateful messages against Jews have been presented. That punishable threats are presented in the public sphere is a development that cannot be accepted at all.

It is the Swedish Security Service that has the fundamental mission to prevent and detect crimes against Sweden's security, combat terrorism, and protect the central state leadership. Sweden has moved from being regarded as a legitimate target to being regarded as a prioritized target for terrorism. In August, the terror threat level was raised to a four on a five-point scale - from an elevated to a high threat.

Against that background, the government has taken a number of measures during the year. The government is now working to finalize a new national strategy against terrorism and violent extremism. On June 1 this year, a special criminal liability for participation in a terrorist organization was introduced. The government has tasked the Swedish Security Service (Säkerhetspolisen) with intensifying the work in the cooperation council against terrorism, which includes 15 agencies. The Crime Prevention Council has been tasked, within the framework of the Center against violent extremism, to strengthen cooperation between national agencies and between agencies and other relevant actors, with the aim of preventing radicalization and the spread of violent extremism. Furthermore, the Police Authority has both been granted extended powers in border areas and been tasked with strengthening border control.

The Government is also taking measures to ensure that the relevant authorities have the capacity to meet the increased threats directed at Swedish society in relevant and effective ways. To adapt the Security Service's operational capacity, the Government has, among other things, proposed in the budget bill that the agency's appropriation should be increased by 180 million kronor next year and that the appropriation should be increased further during the following two years.

Regarding the occurrence of sympathies and expressions of opinion in support of terrorism in political parties, there are some things I want to highlight. Swedish popular governance and our democratic system of government are based on free formation of opinion, and this presupposes, among other things, a robust freedom of expression, freedom of assembly, and freedom of association. Expressing an opinion on or sympathy for a terrorist organization or its ideology is therefore, as a general rule, not punishable and should not be either. Another thing is that such expressions in certain specific situations can be used as evidence that someone has committed the crime of participating in a terrorist organization. If the expressions have content that meets the requirements in, for example, the provisions on hate speech against a group, they can be punishable according to that provision.

Taking measures to map members in the political parties, as the interpellator requests, may to some extent presuppose that the state should engage in opinion registration within the parties. Against that background, I want to emphasize that opinion registration of Swedish citizens regarding political views is absolutely prohibited according to the Instrument of Government.

To this, it should be added that in Sweden there is, in my opinion, a good tradition of avoiding, as far as possible, intervening in the work of political parties through legislation or other similar measures. The parties have a central importance in our representative democracy, and interventions in their internal affairs can mean infringements on constitutionally protected civil liberties and rights. It lies largely on the political parties themselves to ensure that they are represented by suitable persons. Furthermore, responsibility for various political positions can be demanded in the public and political debate, and ultimately, of course, by the voters in general elections.

The work against terrorism and other security-threatening activities is one of the government's most important tasks. That being said, I do not intend to take just any such initiatives as Tobias Andersson requests.

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

Tobias Andersson (SD)

Madam Speaker! I thank you for the answer from the Minister of Justice.

I want to start by repeating that I am pleased with the support for Israel that the government has expressed. It is important that we stand up for the only democracy in the region and always stand up against terrorism.

However, this interpellation deals with something as unpleasant as the support that has been expressed for the terrorist attack across Sweden. Hopefully, most Swedes have seen the terrifying video clips documenting how people with immigrant backgrounds across Sweden celebrated the slaughter of innocent Jews. This is something that, for me, should be associated with a one-way ticket back to the country where the individuals have their origins.

In addition to this pure celebration of the terror attack, thousands of people have gathered across Sweden for Palestine demonstrations in which antisemitism and hatred have been disguised to varying degrees.

Now, as has been said, the government has been clear with its condemnation. But unfortunately, we have not seen the same clear condemnation and stance - such as from the Sweden Democrats and the governing parties - from all parties in the Swedish Riksdag.

The Social Democrats' Hamas links are becoming increasingly clear. And the situation is likely even worse in the Left Party, which has admitted that they have channeled Swedish aid funds to groups that have subsequently boasted about their involvement in the terror attacks.

This ingrained support for Hamas in and in the borderlands of established Swedish political parties in the Riksdag risks seriously damaging Sweden's reputation and security policy position, not least given that politicians on the left wing, through their dissemination of propaganda, incite Islamist groups in Sweden.

We have seen what it leads to around the Western world when terror sympathizers clash with the police and attack Jewish interests and Jewish persons.

It was against this background that I submitted the interpellation to hear how the Minister for Justice views any pro-terrorist sympathies within political parties.

With this said, I naturally share the Minister's view: that we shall not register Swedish citizens regarding their political views in violation of the Instrument of Government. On the other hand, both the Minister and I know that there is a difference between political opinion registration and the need to keep track of extremists who harbor sympathies for terrorism and who constitute a potential security threat. To sympathize with or be part of a terrorist group is, in my book, not the same as sympathizing with or being part of a political party.

The Minister mentions himself that on June 1 of this year we introduced a special criminal liability for participation in a terrorist organization, which naturally does not conflict with the Instrument of Government. We also have a number of agencies working against radicalization, violent extremism, and terrorism. That work would be difficult if one were not allowed to map terrorist sympathies in Sweden - even if they exist among individuals in or in connection with political parties.

Madam Speaker! I do not need to get bogged down in explaining why it would have been possible to act on the theme that my questions concern. I can instead ask the Minister for Justice in a somewhat broader sense how the government views certain parties' links to the extremism that has been made visible across Sweden following the terror attack in Israel on October 7.

Do you view it with concern that certain parties do not keep clean, and do you think it is worth for the government to raise this for a broader public debate in order to make such a problem visible?

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

Nima Gholam Ali Pour (SD)

Madam Speaker! There is an ongoing incident in the Swedish Riksdag that is causing widespread outrage. Quite a few people are upset when they hear that a member of the Swedish Riksdag participated in a Hamas conference as recently as in May this year. Even worse is that he did this knowing that it was precisely Hamas that organized this conference.

Madam Speaker! Hamas is not only a terrorist organization. Hamas is also an antisemitic organization whose foundations rest on antisemitic conspiracy theories.

In Hamas' statutes from 1988, reference is made to antisemitic conspiracy theories, such as the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. In the same statutes from 1988, it clearly appears that Hamas does not believe in peace and that Hamas' war is not only against Israel but against all Jews. Aware of all this, this Member of Parliament, who represents the Social Democrats (S), decided to nevertheless participate in this conference as a guest of honor.

This is what has happened, and it cannot be changed through Social Democratic lies. It is nothing less than a scandal that someone who has such close ties to an Islamist terrorist organization sits in Sweden's Riksdag.

Unfortunately, the problem that the interpellor raises is a reality in Sweden. There are parties that cannot distance themselves from terrorism. There are parties whose members have connections to Islamist terrorist organizations.

Somewhere I can think that we should draw red lines for what members of parliament should be allowed to engage in. The Swedes who go to work every day and who expect to receive a sensible representation in Sweden's Riksdag should not be represented by terrorist sympathizers who primarily think of Hamas's best interests instead of Sweden's best.

Madam Speaker! The question that the Minister should answer today is: Where is the limit? Is it really the case that political parties should be able to place members in this Riksdag who represent our enemies? Let there be no doubt about that matter: Islamist terrorists are Sweden's enemies.

To the Social Democrats, I have a message: Hamas are our enemies. Stop placing their sympathizers in this Riksdag! It is not reasonable that we, while we have authorities working against Islamist terrorism, have Social Democratic members in the Riksdag who strengthen Islamist terrorism. It is unfair to the authorities who devote effort and resources to fighting our enemies. It is also unfair to the Swedish people, who are being represented by Hamas sympathizers because the Social Democrats seem to need the Islamists' support.

On October 7, we all saw what Hamas's ideology means when it is put into action. It was rapes, mass murders, and atrocities that none of us could ever have imagined. It is a stain of shame that we have a Member of Parliament who sympathizes with this sick organization and that the Social Democrats do not have the courage and backbone to do anything about it. The Swedish people deserve more from their legislative assembly.

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

Mattias Vepsä (S)

Madam Speaker! I thank you for this debate. Falsehoods and lies are flying from the representatives of the Sverigedemokraterna. There are no Hamas sympathizers in the Socialdemokraterna parliamentary group. There is a social democratic party and a parliamentary group that has clearly stood behind the terror legislation that has been presented in this chamber. We have pushed this during our time in government. We say that Hamas's acts and acts of terror must be condemned. We also say that there must be an end to the violence affecting civilians. We need measures to ensure peace and a two-state solution. If this is the case, there is no doubt whatsoever in this chamber.

Madam Speaker! I actually believe that this debate is about laying some smokescreens. There are two members from the Sweden Democrats. It is a party with deep links to right-wing extremism and with a history where they have participated in demonstrations side by side with national socialists, Nazis, and other right-wing extremists.

I know that the government describes the situation we are currently in as the most serious security policy situation since the Second World War – I agree with that. At the same time, there is a party in the Swedish Riksdag that daily seeks to drive wedges between us and try to divide us instead of uniting us. It is, therefore, in a situation where Swedes have had to risk their lives simply because they are Swedes, just as the minister described in his statement.

It is also a situation where hundreds of thousands of people may become alarmed and live in an increased state of threat. People are afraid of antisemitic acts. People are afraid of Islamophobic acts.

The Sweden Democrats' role in Swedish politics is precisely about sowing division - in a situation where we most need to go together and isolate and combat terrorism and ensure that we can live in freedom and peace. This is a party with a history - but it is also a current situation - of clear links to right-wing extremism.

Just a year ago, in connection with the election, it was revealed that 214 candidates had backgrounds in right-wing extremist movements, and they were forced to leave the lists.

In this chamber, hate speech has flown and things have been said about Sweden's Jews. Accusations have been directed at Swedish Muslims. Heavyweight representatives for Sverigedemokraterna contribute, to say the least, to worsening the security policy threat that we live with today. One does not need to go back any further than this past summer to see how members of an entire local branch in Skåne were expelled because they refused to distance themselves from Nazism – this, in the security policy worst situation since World War II.

Madam Speaker! I share much of what the Minister says in his response regarding standing up for Swedish democracy, fighting against terrorism, and coming together to reduce the threat of terrorism. Against the background of what the leader of the Sweden Democrats said about tearing down mosques and removing the pro-Islamic movement, the Social Democrats nevertheless want to ask the question: What does the government consider to be the necessary initiatives to handle the increased threat against Sweden, which, among other things, has its background in Jimmie Åkesson's Islamophobic statements?

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

Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)

Madam Speaker! To begin with, I want to emphasize that Hamas is a terrorist organization. There is no doubt whatsoever about that. It is classified as such, and it is for very good reasons. We saw in a brutal way why it is that way in connection with the terror attack against Israel on October 7. The consequences for those who became victims of the terror attack are horrific.

Unfortunately, we also saw around the world and even in Sweden a reaction to this terrorist attack that in many ways was outrageous and tasteless, an inability to distinguish between what one could say are fully legitimate political views on how to handle a complicated situation in the Middle East on one hand and boundless praises of an organization that engages in terror and practices violence and brutality against other people on the other hand.

I believe that many were rightly shaken by what we saw on Swedish streets and squares, and there is no doubt whatsoever that these are expressions of opinion that a decent society cannot accept or live with. We must counteract them in different ways to promote values where the vision becomes clear and one can, as said, distinguish between what are legitimate and fully reasonable differences of opinion in an open and free society on one hand and the embrace of terrorism and violence-seeking extremism on the other.

With that said, I want to repeat that the mission both to prevent and to detect crimes against Sweden's security in general and terrorism in particular lies with the Swedish Security Service and not in itself with the government, and that was what I also answered.

Will the government take any specific measures that the government considers targeted towards political parties? I mean, specifically when it comes to political parties and their integrity, it is primarily through political debate and political accountability, as well as through the voters' scrutiny of the parties, that these issues should be handled. It makes no difference whether it is a Member of Parliament who constitutes a security threat in a serious sense or whether it is a government member or a municipal council member. The Security Service's mission is to counter terrorism and combat violent extremism in our society. But specific measures targeted at politically elected officials are nothing that I want to stand behind.

I also think that the discussion we are having here is well-suited to underline exactly that point – that political accountability takes place in an open debate in this way, where all parties must stand up for their positions and explain why Members of Parliament participate in conferences that have obviously been organized by Hamas or if aid funds have been sent to groups through Hamas and so on.

Regarding the threat situation against Sweden, which was also raised here, it is my firm opinion that the measures the government takes regarding safeguarding the country against terrorism and violent extremism here at home, and such measures aimed at correcting incorrect perceptions of Sweden abroad, are collectively precisely intended to temper the threat situation, which is high regarding threats from terrorism and violent extremism. It is something that unfortunately has escalated during the past year, and that justifies far-reaching measures from the government's and responsible authorities' side.

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

Tobias Andersson (SD)

Madam Speaker! I thank again for the answer from the Minister for Justice.

Thanks also to Mattias Vepsä from the Social Democrats, who has entered this debate and, in his address from his perspective on the matter, stated that there is no one within the Social Democrats who harbors sympathies for Hamas.

It could be so. It could be so that a number of Social Democrats have repeatedly just had bad luck when it comes to whom they have socialized with, which flags they have stood next to, which speakers they have shared the stage with, and which Hamas representatives they have embraced.

The examples I have raised now, Madam Speaker, are an unfortunate situation for Social Democrats who have been caught on camera and shared on social media. One can imagine what bad luck some Social Democrats have had in more hidden contexts that have not reached the light of public scrutiny.

It could be pure bad luck for the Social Democrats that they repeatedly happen to find themselves in situations where it can be perceived as if they have sympathies for terrorism by supporting Hamas. It could also be that they truly have those sympathies. A third alternative is that they appeal to sympathizing with Hamas or Hamas's cause in order to win votes among groups that share Hamas's view on the matter.

Simplified, I see it as either a lot of bad luck within the Social Democrats, alternatively an active support of Hamas, alternatively that one is appealing to it to win votes in these murky waters. We must form our own opinion on which of these alternatives is consistent with the truth.

Mattias Vepsä points out that within the Sweden Democrats, there have been problematic individuals with, in some cases, extremist connections. That is true. We have also acted resolutely and excluded these individuals.

Here the parties differ very much. In the Moderaterna, one can be forced to leave a prominent position if one has fished for eel. In the Socialdemokraterna, one can be embraced with Hamas supporters who are later convicted of financing terror, yet still have a party leader who, weeping in the speaker's chair, argues that there are no problems with the individual in question. There we differ very much.

In the Sweden Democrats, we exclude persons with extremist connections. In the Social Democrats, one has a party leader who, even in this situation, chooses to support persons with extremist connections. There is a big difference between the parties.

There is also a difference in how this is addressed in the media. If Jimmie Åkesson had tweeted that Ukraine had bombed a hospital in Russia with hundreds dead as a result, and Jimmie Åkesson had then used Russia Today or some other part of the Russian propaganda machinery as a source for the tweet, I am quite convinced, Madam Speaker, that the entire Swedish media establishment as well as the political parties would have been furious over Jimmie Åkesson's tweeting given both the stance and the source reference.

When the Social Democrats' party leader Magdalena Andersson tweets that Israel has blown up a hospital in Gaza and then uses various Hamas channels as a source for such a claim, this is not met with the same resolute distancing, either from the media or from other parts of the political establishment.

I find this to be concerning. There are differences between the parties, but there are also differences regarding how the parties are handled in different contexts.

With this said, Madam Speaker, I appreciate, as I have said, the answers I have received from the Minister so far. I think it is important that we emphasize the importance of the parties keeping clean from persons with extremist sympathies and, in some cases, even sympathy for terrorist organizations among their members.

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

Nima Gholam Ali Pour (SD)

Madam Speaker! Member Mattias Vepsä said from the rostrum that there are no links between Social Democratic members of Parliament and Hamas. I come from Malmö, and I followed the conference in detail through the media. There were other members from the Social Democrats who planned to attend this conference which took place in May this year, but when they learned that Hamas organized the conference, they refrained from attending. When Jamal El-Haj learned that Hamas organized the conference, he chose to participate anyway, aware that Hamas was behind the conference.

Why do the Social Democrats continue to defend a member, when there is no doubt that he participated in the conference knowing that Hamas organized it? In doing so, he legitimized an antisemitic organization. Why do the Social Democrats, and even the party leader, continue to defend this member? What is the reason for defending the member, when you know that he deliberately chose to sympathize with Hamas and thereby deliberately legitimized Hamas? Who do the Social Democrats actually represent when one defends such a member? Do you represent the Swedish people, or do you represent Palestinian perpetrators of violence? The Swedish people must know who represents them in this assembly and who serves the Palestinian perpetrators of violence.

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

Mattias Vepsä (S)

Madam Speaker! I note that we may have views on how journalists should report on political life in Sweden, what errors and shortcomings the political journalists have, or which articles should be written. It is perfectly free to start your own media outlets. I know that the Sverigedemokraterna are good at this and have their own channels, but I also think that a free and independent press does its job by scrutinizing the political parties.

I do not want to enter into a discussion about the conference, but I note that if it had been a question of a terrorist conference in Malmö, I would have hoped that Säpo with others would have stopped it. It has not been sanctioned by the Social Democrats that Jamal visited the conference, but just as the members have noted, there was a recommendation not to attend the meeting.

One can have bad luck when it comes to politics, just as Tobias Andersson said in his post. For the Sverigedemokraterna, one had bad luck 218 times when setting their parliamentary lists because there were people with links to right-wing extremism. One had bad luck twelve times in Klippan because one had to exclude the local branch because they refused to distance themselves from active Nazism. One also had a lot of bad luck in appointing leading heavy representatives. The chairman of the Justice Committee, Richard Jomshof, was not satisfied with burning one Quran but gladly 100, that is to say that there should be book burnings on Swedish streets and squares in order to incite. One also had a bit of bad luck when the Sverigedemokraterna party leader wanted to tear down mosques and attack a religious group in Sweden.

I pose a question to the Minister for Justice. Do you think the misfortune of the government constellation's largest party facilitates or undermines Swedish security right now?

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

Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)

Madam Speaker! Thank you for the opportunity to discuss these important issues today!

There is no doubt whatsoever that there is a serious threat against Sweden. It is this that has driven the decision that the head of the Security Service made in August, namely that the terror threat level against Sweden is raised from a three to a four on the five-point scale, from an elevated threat to a high threat. There is also no doubt that what has driven the escalation of the threat is the threat from violent Islamist extremism.

Over a longer period, we can observe that the Security Service handles threats from three sides. It is violent Islamism, right-wing extremism, and autonomous left-wing. That can vary from time to time, but there is no doubt that during this year, it is primarily the threats from violent Islamism that have caused the precarious situation that Sweden is currently in.

Let me allow myself a reflection from the sidelines. I emphasize that the government, in its actions in all respects, has tried to be balanced, clear, sensible, and contribute to a stability. But from the sidelines, I do not always think that all parties live up to their best in that part. I have myself said that there is reason to show responsibility in the way of describing the extremely legitimate and important work that must take place when it comes to pushing back Islamism in the country, but we must at the same time be careful to make a distinction between the violence-oriented Islamism and Muslims in general. It is important to bring the mainstream Muslim along in the fight against Islamism, that ideology, that political line, which has completely different claims in society.

But at the same time, I note that even the Social Democrats have a certain burden of explanation regarding the conference that has been discussed today. Different representatives for the parties have shared information on social media or expressed themselves hastily about things in a way that there has been reason to take back in hindsight. It would have been better if, in their eagerness to participate in the culture war in these issues, they had not incited and fueled the debate that contributes to the polarization in the country.

There are, in short, many who have reason to exercise restraint, think before they act, and contribute to drawing a clear line against that which is extreme and which can be perceived on good grounds as a support for terrorist organizations, as well as against that which is generally seen as intended to fuel [extremism]. It is a polarization that we know over time increases the risk of radicalization and contributes to creating security problems for the citizens in our country, for Swedish interests here at home, and for Swedish interests abroad.

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

Tobias Andersson (SD)

Madam Speaker! I thank you for the new answer from the Minister, and I also thank Mattias Vepsä for his participation in the debate.

Let me try to summarize. Do the Social Democrats have a widespread problem with members and elected representatives who harbor pro-terrorist sympathies? No, I don't think so, Madam Speaker. I believe there are isolated such cases. But I believe above all that within the Social Democrats, there is a strategic ambition not to break with groupings where it is okay to harbor such views.

Just as Jimmie Åkesson said in his speech at our party's national days, I am convinced that the Social Democrats are directly dependent on more or less Islamist voters. It would look bad if, for example, one excluded the Member of Parliament who has been seen on several occasions together with Hamas representatives, because it would risk sending a signal out to the suburbs where the voters live that the Social Democrats are no longer the given answer for them.

Who knows? If someone chooses to vote for something else, we might perhaps see another party reach the 4-percent threshold and take a place in Sweden's Riksdag. I believe that is how it stands, that is to say, one does not have any major problem with sympathies for terrorism within the Socialdemokraterna, but definitely in groupings that vote for the Socialdemokraterna and which the Socialdemokraterna are keen to maintain as a voting bloc.

The big difference is that the Sweden Democrats exclude extremists. Why, Madam Speaker? Yes, because we have no interest in having representatives with extremist connections or having voters who are extremists. There is an obvious dividing line between the Sweden Democrats and the Social Democrats.

The Social Democrats could have chosen to act in the same way. The problem is that the electorate of extremists that the Social Democrats appeal to is many times larger, and that becomes a problem for the Social Democrats. That is perhaps why our parties act differently.

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

Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)

Madam Speaker! I thank the interpellor for the opportunity to discuss these important issues in the chamber today.

Sweden is in a serious security situation. It is driven over a long period by various ideological orientations - it can be far-right orientations, autonomous left, or violent Islamism. During this year, it is primarily violent Islamism that has driven an increased terror threat against Sweden. This is serious, and we must work against it on all fronts both here at home and abroad.

In this context, I also want to say that the government is doing an enormous amount in this part. We ensure that all relevant authorities have the assignments and the mandates they need and that we allocate resources in the way the authorities request. We ensure that the work is about both reducing and preventing threats here and now and about long-term countering violence-promoting extremism and other views that lead to terrorism and tangible security threats to our country in the future.

The Swedish Security Service (Säkerhetspolisen) is responsible for following individuals who may pose a security threat and for taking adequate measures against them. I believe that the political debate in this area is extremely necessary and welcome. At its core, there is also that which lies beyond the criminal, and that must also be discussed. In that case, it is about ensuring that we have a clear stance against violent extremism and other extremism, especially when it concerns groups that either themselves constitute terrorist organizations or express sympathies for organizations that engage in terrorism and brutal violence against people here at home and in other parts of the world.

This government is determined to do its part so that Sweden will be a safe and secure country.

The interpellations debate was hereby concluded.

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