Response to interpellation 2023/24:640 on the ban on the use of full-face veils, hijab, and burqa
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
The debate concerns the ban on full-face veils, hijab, and burka. L has no intention of introducing a general ban as it risks conflicting with freedom of religion, the constitution, and the principle of equal treatment 1. L argues that the government views forced wearing as a huge problem 2, but that measures must be practically feasible and not target a specific religion 2. L emphasizes that the government is working on tightening penalty scales and strengthening violence prevention work 1 3. SD considers the veil to be a garment that oppresses women, requiring a ban in public places 4 5. SD argues that the veil is a tool for honor-based oppression and control of a woman's sexuality 6 3. SD considers that children have a right to freedom of thought and that the veil must be banned in school to protect children from indoctrination 5 7. SD criticizes the government for passivity and argues that a ban does not conflict with the European Convention 7 8.
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 Paulina Brandberg (L)
Mr. Speaker! Sara Gille has asked me if I and the government intend to take measures to introduce a general ban on the use of full-face veils, hijab, and burka in Sweden.
Let me begin by stating that no one has the right to impose their views on others in the name of honor, whether regarding clothing or anything else. That girls or women are urged to cover themselves must in many cases be perceived as an expression of a view on the relationship between the sexes that we cannot accept in Sweden. In Sweden, girls and boys, and women and men, shall be given the same opportunities and treated equally. People's freedom shall not be limited because of their gender.
Compulsion to wear a certain garment such as a full-face veil, hijab, or burqa is an expression of honor-related oppression, which constitutes a serious violation of women's fundamental freedoms and rights. Legislative measures should therefore, in the first instance, be directed against those who perpetrate honor-related violence and oppression, rather than against those who are subjected to it.
The question raised by the interpellator regarding a general and complete ban on full-face veils, hijabs, and other value-driven garments in Sweden is complex and gives rise to a number of questions regarding fundamental freedoms and rights. Sweden shall be a free country, where it is obvious that everyone is free to dress as they wish without being imposed upon by others' values.
An unconditional ban on, for example, wearing face-covering garments risks coming into conflict with, among other things, freedom of religion as well as in our own constitution and in the European Convention, as well as the principle of equal treatment.
When it comes to sharpening society's reactions towards those who perpetrate honor-related violence and oppression, the government has taken several measures. One part of the work against honor-related violence and oppression is to ensure that the legislation is comprehensive and provides a purposeful protection. As recently as January this year, we gave a special investigator a mandate to review a number of criminal and civil law issues in order to sharpen the view on honor-related violence and oppression, including by taking a position on whether the sentencing scales for certain honor-related crimes should be tightened. The government has also strengthened the violence prevention work through a permanent reinforcement of 50 million kronor annually for the work against honor-related violence and oppression.
Against this background, I currently have no intention of taking the initiative for such a general ban as Sara Gille requests.
Sara Gille (SD)
Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Minister, for the answer! That women should display their bodies and cover themselves with a full-body veil or a niqab is a form of oppression of women that is spreading across the world, not least in Sweden.
Today, it is forbidden to wear a full-face Muslim veil, such as a burka and niqab, in public places in several countries around Europe. First was France, which already in 2011 decided that it should be illegal to cover the face with a burka or niqab in public places. This was followed by Belgium, the Netherlands, Denmark, Latvia, etcetera.
Italy, Switzerland and Spain have introduced bans in certain regions.
Our neighboring country Denmark decided on this in 2018. Furthermore, there are several countries around Europe that are discussing a ban.
In France, it has also been decided that men who force their wives or daughters to wear a full-face veil can be sentenced to heavy fines and imprisonment.
One after another, countries around Europe are deciding on a ban against wearing a full-face veil. At the same time, we have seen how honor-related violence and oppression have increased in Sweden during recent years.
This is a garment that oppresses women and is not compatible with Sweden's values. If the veil were so fantastic, it would have been more logical for everyone, regardless of gender, to wear it all around the world. But, Mr. Speaker, it is the Muslim crowd of girls and women who get the "honor" of wearing it. It is they who are forced to wear it.
This is a symbol of a visible oppression where the intention is to control and sexualize girls and women, even children as young as preschool age.
If the men cannot keep their fingers off because they see a woman who has not covered her hair, it is actually they who should be at home. Or does the minister mean that it is the women themselves who have made it all up?
To say that it is voluntary is absurd. Had the veil been voluntary, there would have been no problem at all for the girls and women who want to take it off to actually do so.
But unfortunately, that is not the case. Today, this is actually one of our country's greatest equality problems, and it is through mass immigration and multiculturalism that this divided society has been created. It is also about giving the Islamists space and letting them be held.
The greatest threat today to the democratic, equal and open society comes precisely from Islamism. Those who try to free themselves from the oppressive garment can be persecuted, mocked, oppressed, assaulted and even killed. The view of these women is that they are dirty and impure. It is a loathsome view of women that has taken hold in large parts of the Muslim world and unfortunately also here in Sweden.
A fundamental starting point must still be to counter the oppression of women, not to appease it or allow it.
The veil is not only a garment that oppresses women, but also a garment that can outright mean a threat to other people by concealing the face. "To hide the face under a full-face veil is against public order, whether it is forced or voluntary," said the then Minister of Justice when the French Senate adopted the veil ban in 2011.
Do you really not believe, as the Minister responsible for these issues in your role as Sweden's Minister for Equality, that there is a truth in that statement even here in Sweden?
Nima Gholam Ali Pour (SD)
Mr. Speaker! Every symbol carries its own values. Every symbol has its purpose. The question is which values the veil symbolizes. What is the purpose of the Muslim veil?
If one looks at how the veil or similar garments are used in the countries in the Middle East, it is obvious that the veil symbolizes that a woman's sexuality is to be controlled by others. It can be the family, the clan, or the state. It is someone else who decides over the woman, and the woman is forced to wear a veil to mark this control.
The purpose of the Muslim veil in these countries is to control the woman. In Iran, one can end up in prison if one does not wear the veil, and in the prisons, the women are subjected to various forms of abuse. In other countries in the Middle East, it is the family or society that, through pressure, forces the woman to wear a veil or some other Islamic garment.
Imagine if all women in Sweden were forced by their families or by the state to wear long skirts to prove their decency! That is exactly what the Muslim veil signifies. It is a garment that is forced upon women so that they shall prove their decency.
Still, some people in this country believe that the veil at Sweden's borders would change its purpose and its ideological basis and suddenly change into something else. That is not how it works. The veil in Sweden is exactly what it is and has been in the Middle East - nothing else.
Despite the fact that women are still being murdered in the Middle East in their struggle to free themselves from the veil, Malmö city will this year host the exhibition Modest Fashion, where the Muslim veil is presented as a hip fashion item. At the same time as Malmö has major problems with the culture of honor, the city is therefore organizing an exhibition where the Muslim veil is presented merely as a fashion item, despite it being a tool to maintain the culture of honor and control a woman's sexuality.
That the authorities in Malmö city are not ashamed is strange. If one views the Muslim veil only as a fashion garment, it is not strange that Malmö has such large problems with the culture of honor.
The Muslim veil represents neither any culture nor religion that should be respected. It is what it is: gender apartheid, sexualization of children and oppression of women.
Those who work daily against honor violence know what the veil represents. Maria Rashidi and Sara Mohammad write in a debate article from 2019 that "the veil signals the ethics of chastity that can be linked to daughters' responsibility for the family's honor."
The evidence that the veil is used as a tool to exercise honor-based oppression is extensive. Nevertheless, one retains this myth that it is only a garment. A sock is a garment. No one is taken away from Sweden and subjected to forced marriage in a country in the Middle East because they took off their socks. But that is precisely what one can be subjected to if one refuses to put on the veil.
Statsrådet Paulina Brandberg (L)
Mr. Speaker! To begin with, I want to emphasize that there is a great consensus between me, the interpellor, and the member regarding the fact that we need to combat honor-related violence and oppression. It has no place whatsoever in Sweden.
There is also a consensus that the veil, hijab, and burka are not just any items of clothing. They cannot be compared to a hat, a sock, or any other garment, but are religious garments that are also often used as tools to maintain honor-related violence and oppression.
In these issues, there is no discrepancy in our view.
What do we do about this then? The question may seem simple, but in reality, it is quite complex. We have a freedom of religion in our constitution. We also have obligations according to international conventions regarding freedom of religion that set limits on what we can do in our legislation. This is not something unique to Sweden, but we see similar challenges in other countries.
When I and the interpellor were recently in New York at the UN Commission on the Status of Women's annual meeting, I had a meeting with the Austrian minister who told me about the legislation they had regarding hijab bans in schools, something that we have also discussed here in Sweden. They had that legislation until it was overturned by the Supreme Court of Austria on the grounds that it only targeted a single religion - Islam. Thus, it was not compatible with the Austrian constitution.
I imagine that the situation looks the same in Sweden: We find it difficult to have measures that target a single religion. We simply need to have a broader impact assessment when we talk about these issues. What we really want to address is the honor-related violence and oppression. That is the key in this. I wish there had been a simple solution, but there isn't. We need to find other ways to take measures.
I really want to emphasize that the women who are forced to wear this form of religious clothing bear no guilt whatsoever for doing so. The guilt lies with those who exercise the coercion. The government has therefore, in the updated Tidö Agreement, concluded that we need to look at the criminalization of unlawful coercion and ensure that it more clearly includes forcing someone to wear religious clothing.
It is a measure that we take in this work, but of course, it is not sufficient when we see the problems that exist out in our schools and in different parts of the country. I myself was very alarmed but not surprised, shall I say, when I, for example, took part of the report that was made in Malmö regarding the extent of honor-based oppression in preschools and schools there and the lack of effective measures.
Sara Gille (SD)
Mr. Speaker! The oppression of women is great all over the world, and in Iran, for example, women can be killed if they refuse the veil or wear it incorrectly. Despite large protests and several demonstrations against the hijab requirement, women continue to be killed. The morality police hunt women with the slogan: Either a veil on the head or a sledgehammer in the head.
The resistance against the hijab compulsion is nothing new in Iran. Already in the middle of the 1800s, a woman took off the hijab, as the first woman in the Muslim world.
In Sweden, this oppression of women is increasing like a cancer tumor spreading throughout the country. A normalization of the female-hostile and female-oppressing Islamism is taking place, and across the country, more and more parallel societies are emerging where girls and women are subjected to various forms of oppression. They are not allowed to dress as they wish, they are not allowed to move freely in society, they are not allowed to marry whom they want, and so on. They are restricted, denied their human rights, and are not covered by the surrounding society's democratic principles.
We must defend our democratic, cultural, and secular values. One step in this is to ban the all-encompassing, women-oppressing veil in all public places. The Sweden Democrats have championed the issue of a veil ban for a long time, both in the Riksdag and in several places across the country.
In the case of Västerbotten, for example, the region has started purchasing veils for healthcare staff, something that my Västerbotten party colleagues actively oppose. Taxpayers' money should not be used to promote the oppression of women, and for the region's part, the money should benefit the care of its citizens and nothing else. Everything else is pure madness and a great disrespect towards the residents.
The Minister says in his response that a ban on wearing face-covering garments risks coming into conflict with freedom of religion, our own constitution, the European Convention, and the principle of equal treatment. I want to clarify to the Minister that the following actually stands in the European Convention: "Freedom to practice one's religion or belief may only be subject to such limitations as are prescribed by law and which are necessary in a democratic society for the sake of public security, for the protection of public order, health or morals or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others."
When someone covers their face, it can pose a danger to the public. Again: Hiding the face under a full-face veil goes against public order, whether it is forced or voluntary.
I would also like to take the opportunity to tip off the Minister regarding Article 14 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, in case she has missed it. There, one can read that children have the right to practice any religion they wish - or none at all. One must respect children's right to freedom of thought, freedom of conscience, and freedom of religion, as well as their right to be free from religion. It is something that is not correct when parents actually force the religion they consider correct upon the children. In that case, the right to decide for oneself is lost.
All forms of religious indoctrination should be totally banned. The government takes the men's side and lets them continue their oppression of women and children instead of actually standing up for everyone's rights. Is it really religious freedom when children are forced to wear a veil or niqab? What is it that makes the responsible minister not see that this is a problem? What is it that makes the minister not stand up for children and young girls?
Nima Gholam Ali Pour (SD)
Mr. Speaker! Even though some have argued that adult women have voluntarily taken on the veil, how can one argue that a ten-year-old child in primary school or a child in preschool has voluntarily taken on the veil? It is bizarre to even imagine that. Which preschool child chooses to take on the veil and cover their hair?
It is interesting that everyone talks about the Convention on the Rights of the Child, but that we cannot agree on banning the veil in preschool and primary school so that children are not exposed to honor oppression. In my eyes, it looks as if political correctness weighs more heavily than what lies in the child's best interest.
The children who are forced to wear a veil need a respite from the oppression. Preschools and schools need to become a place where honor oppression cannot be practiced. Therefore, the veil must be banned at least in these places. It is strange that politicians cannot even agree on this. I am amazed when I see that a teacher in the Swedish school can tell a student to take off their cap, but neither that teacher nor the country's politicians dare to tell the student that she should take off the veil, even though the veil functions as a tool for oppression. It is cowardly and a betrayal of all children who grow up under this oppression.
We know what the veil represents. It is one of all the markers that have existed throughout history to show that the woman is subordinate to the man. These markers have previously been countered in Sweden, but when it comes to the veil, far too many Swedish politicians remain passive. This passivity is cowardly and unacceptable.
Statsrådet Paulina Brandberg (L)
Mr. Speaker! The interpellor asks me if I do not see that it is a problem that girls and women are forced to wear hijab and burka. Of course, both I and the government see that this is a huge problem. That is precisely why we have extensive work against honor-related violence and oppression.
That we do not want to introduce a targeted ban in accordance with what the Sweden Democrats, the interpellator, and the Member of Parliament propose has absolutely nothing to do with political correctness. What is important here is the group that is subjected to this and how we protect them in the best possible way, and therefore we must find measures that can be realized in practice.
As I previously said, I find it difficult to see a solution where we take measures against religious garments aimed solely at a specific religion. In that case, we must instead have measures that target religious clothing in a broader way, and then the description of the consequences becomes even greater. Based on that description of consequences, we must also consider how this stands in relation to our constitution. It is simply a matter of having proposals that are practically feasible in our legal system. It is only about this; it is not about us not seeing the problem.
Of course it is so, just as the interpellor has pointed out, that freedom of religion in our country includes both a right to practice the religion one wants to practice and a right to avoid practicing the religion one does not want to practice. Here we see how, above all, parents and relatives in Sweden deprive other people of their freedom and force them to, for example, wear religious symbols - or for that part we are talking about here, that is, the veil or burqa. We need to act against this. We cannot remain passive towards this, but we must find the measures that are effective and practically feasible.
As I mentioned, we have in the new, updated Tidö Agreement a measure aimed at this. I would, however, particularly return to what I said in my previous speech, namely that we must see the extent of this problem in Sweden. This applies in particular within school and preschool. There, we do not only have problems with preschools and school staff who lack relevant knowledge to act in an adequate way when there are signals of honor-related violence and oppression, but there is actually school staff and preschool staff who actively contribute to maintaining an honor-oppression, among other things by ensuring that the veil stays on during the entire school day or preschool day.
This should not exist in Sweden at all, and we need to step up the work from the government's side. A more active effort is also needed out in our municipalities. From the government's side, we are trying in every way to find the measures required for the work to function in all the capillaries of society. It is because far too many are harmed and lose their civil rights, especially girls and women. We can never remain passive towards this.
Sara Gille (SD)
Mr. Speaker! Honor is being oppressed and violence is flourishing around us, and we are failing the girls and women who are subjected to it. Sweden has introduced legal tightening against forced, child, and multiple marriages, but it is clear that more measures are needed.
All children have the right to have their rights met, and children's rights shall be strengthened. All forms of violence against children must be combated, including honor-related violence and oppression. Nevertheless, it occurs in Sweden that children are not allowed to have their own will and their own faith.
Mr. Speaker! Our previous government had representatives who actually wore a veil in the dictatorship of Iran. I hope for more from this government, but now we have a Minister for Equality who belongs to the party that, during the party's convention, voted down a veil ban. I can understand that the Minister does not see the error in the oppression of the veil when her party does not even see it. I do not understand the point of sitting as Minister for Equality and not standing up for the rights of women and children. It does not rhyme. Does the Minister seriously mean that these oppressed women have the right and opportunity to make their voices heard when they are treated in this way?
Furthermore, I want to mention that the European Court of Human Rights has already examined whether a general veil ban violates the European Convention in the case of France's ban on veils in public places. The European Court of Human Rights ruled that the ban does not violate the European Convention. Does the minister have the right of interpretation over the European Court of Human Rights?
Statsrådet Paulina Brandberg (L)
Mr. Speaker! I thank the interpellator and the member for the debate, and just as it has been pointed out, one of Sweden's most burning equality problems is that young girls' and women's freedom and rights are restricted in a completely unacceptable way. That they can live like anyone else and on the same terms as other girls and women as well as boys and men in our country is completely fundamental to our equality policy, and we will never accept anything else. Therefore, we will continue to take measures as long as it looks the way it does.
I also want to be clear that the Swedish government condemns oppression against women and, above all, the murder of women when they do not live up to the lifestyle that men demand. This must not take place anywhere in Sweden.
The previous government called its foreign policy feminist, and then, as mentioned, placed representatives who wore hijabs during an official visit to Iran. No one in this government will do that.
I thank you again for the debate. I am glad that we have a consensus regarding the issues, even though we have different views on how we should solve them.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.