Response to interpellation 2023/24:74 on measures against climate activists

Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)

Madam Speaker! Tobias Andersson has asked me what measures I intend to take in light of the radical climate activists' roadblocks and other socially harmful activities, and whether the government and I intend to take any measures to tighten the penalties for roadblocks.

Blocking a road risks not only causing delays and frustration but can also disrupt emergency services and urgent transports. If public order is disturbed, the police have, according to the Police Act, a duty to intervene and can, for example, remove a person from the roadway. According to the Public Order Act, the police may also dissolve a public assembly that causes serious disruption to traffic. If a participant in a gathering that disturbs public order does not obey the police's command, they can be convicted of disobedience against the police.

Anyone who blocks a road in a way that causes serious disruptions to traffic can also be convicted of sabotage. There are several examples of such judgments in practice. The penalty for sabotage extends to four years of imprisonment. In the worst case, the disruptions can hinder important emergency response activities. If a road blockade prevents police, ambulance, or any other form of rescue operation from getting through, it can be assessed as sabotage against emergency services. The penalty for that crime is also imprisonment for a maximum of four years. For aggravated sabotage against emergency services, the penalty range is imprisonment for a certain period, at least two and at most 18 years, or for life.

The interpellor also mentions that Climate and Environment Minister Romina Pourmokhtari had to cancel her participation at Fossilfritt Sverige. In connection with that example, I can state that it is of the utmost importance that socially important activities of various kinds, in this case a meeting on the climate issue, can take place in a safe manner. That type of gathering constitutes a fundamental pillar of our democracy and must be protected. Threats, violence, and disturbances are never acceptable, and such actions are punishable, regardless of whether they occur with the aim of gaining attention for a political viewpoint or for any other purpose. Furthermore, state proceedings and public gatherings, through a specific penal provision, have extra protection against disturbances in the form of noise or similar.

It should be emphasized that the right to demonstrate is central in a democracy, and all restrictions on that right must meet requirements of legality, necessity, and proportionality. That being said, road blockades and the disruption of meetings on important social issues can have extremely harmful or dangerous consequences for society. For example, the method of blocking roads can pose a danger to life and health. The Government therefore views this issue with the utmost seriousness.

The consequences for those who disrupt emergency services must be direct and tangible. The Government has therefore commissioned an investigator to consider whether the penalty scale for sabotage against emergency services should be tightened. The assignment is to be reported by January 1st next year at the latest.

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

Tobias Andersson (SD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you for the answer from the Minister of Justice!

In recent years, we have seen a new trend emerge, intensify, and spread. Individuals without respect for existing legislation or their fellow human beings engage in various forms of vandalism, defiance against the police, sabotage, and so on, under the banner of climate activism.

In their own little bubble, they do indeed break the law, but they do it for at least something fine. They have managed to convince themselves of that description of reality, and then they strive to mislead more into being of the same opinion.

This has not been a problem limited to Sweden. All around the Western world, spoiled rioters have, among other things, attacked works of art with everything from paint to hammers, smashed innocent private individuals' vehicles, destroyed infrastructure, and blocked roads.

Just the latter is what we have seen most of in Sweden. The recurring road blockades, not least here in Stockholm, regularly make life more difficult for those people who want to do the right thing and get to work on time to contribute to society as a whole.

These are situations that would not have needed to arise if the police ensured the accessibility of the roads and the activists received tangible punishments for the societal damage they generate through their actions and the cost caused by these actions.

Unfortunately, it is not uncommon to see in Sweden instead how the police accompany the activists despite them lacking a permit and despite the problems that arise, not least when this occurs during rush hour.

Against this background, it is obvious to me that the need for measures against criminal climate activists has increased. It would be positive if the government looked at new tools or opportunities to tackle this problem.

In his response, the Minister for Justice highlights the review of the sentencing scale for sabotage against emergency services personnel. I think that is good. The Minister also points out that several of the activists have already been convicted of sabotage. That is correct.

I know that Dagens Arena conducted a review. There, it was established that 25 climate activists have been convicted of sabotage since 2022. Some of these 25 have been convicted of several acts of sabotage in the same case. Furthermore, 134 judgments against climate activists have been reviewed. It involves a total of 200 people, of whom several appear in a series of these cases. It can involve several counts in the same case. It is obvious that this is a problem that has really blossomed in recent times.

In his response, the Minister for Justice mentions that it is purely hypothetically possible to be sentenced to four years in prison for sabotage. This, however, has never occurred in this context. Of the 25 climate activists who have been convicted of sabotage, only one has received a prison sentence. It was a repeat offense involving an incident directed against an airport.

Given that the Minister in their response does not highlight the need to change the sentencing scale for minimum penalties for sabotage, I would like to ask if this is something that the Minister and the Government are looking into. Based on the existing legal situation and the cases I have been able to review, I do not experience the sabotage legislation as truly meeting this increasing problem. It certainly does not send clear signals to those who repeatedly violate the sabotage legislation.

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

Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Tobias Andersson, for the opportunity to discuss this pressing issue in the chamber!

Let me first underline what I said initially, which confirms much of what Tobias Andersson takes up. We are talking about activities that are both dangerous for people who want to move forward in traffic and potentially extremely dangerous if it is also the case that it is activity that would prevent, for example, ambulances or fire trucks from moving forward in traffic.

The potential seriousness of the consequences of that type of activity is also reflected in the penal legislation. This applies particularly if one commits serious crimes. If it has consequences in relation to emergency services, it is even to the extent that one can receive life imprisonment according to today's sentencing scales. It reflects, as said, the seriousness of the type of crime that we are now talking about.

There is a problem beyond the problems this entails for road users, honest people who want to get to work or drop off children at preschool or school – which is reason enough to take this crime seriously – and beyond the consequences this can have for emergency services. It is the problem description that Tobias Andersson raises and which I would like to agree with: Related activities and public expressions have also been about attacking other people's freedom of expression.

Whether it concerns preventing others from speaking and expressing their views in practice through activities in connection with a public meeting, or whether it concerns attacking works of art that one does not appreciate for various reasons, these are activities intended to limit democratic dialogue and limit the freedoms and rights that each individual has. It also underscores the democratic dimension and the democratic issues in the type of activities we are now talking about.

When we look ahead, we have, as we have said, a review underway of precisely the regulations regarding blue-light sabotage. Furthermore, we are conducting a general review of criminal law which has a broader scope and covers criminal law in general. When one now speaks of sentencing scales in these cases, it can be stated that they, not least for the serious crimes but also for the less serious crimes, already today contain very intrusive custodial sentences. It is up to four years of imprisonment for the standard crimes and even up to life imprisonment for the serious crimes.

It is largely about the application of the lower end of the sentencing scale, i.e., what one can normally expect for a penalty if one engages in these types of activities. I mean that it is an important part of the starting point for the review.

If one puts it into a perspective of how we are now working with criminal law, it is generally about achieving a correct application of the law that partly uses the entire sentencing scale in a different way than is sometimes the case today, and partly directs the spotlight towards the lower part of the sentencing scale. This type of case, but also other cases, often end up there.

In summary, it is an extraordinarily important issue that is raised in the interpellation. It is already the case today that the severity of crimes is reflected in criminal law, but the review we are undertaking is intended to further sharpen the severity of the criminality and ensure that the consequences become even more tangible than they are today.

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

Tobias Andersson (SD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you again for the answer from the Minister of Justice! I believe it is worth emphasizing the importance of the general review of criminal law, which the Minister, with his portfolio and his mandate, devotes himself to during the day. In this work, the Sweden Democrats also constitute a constructive party.

It is obvious that it has not really worked in these specific cases, I believe. Those who have been the subject of prosecution regarding both sabotage and other criminal acts often celebrate reaching that point. There are examples where people who have been in a district court hearing choose, in the near future, to join a similar activist effort again. One has then already been faced with society's accountability, one has been in a district court hearing and risks being punished for the action one has performed through, for example, a road blockade—and as some form of follow-up, one goes out and does exactly the same thing again.

Then I do not think that we, from the political side, have shown through legislation with what seriousness we view these types of actions. This applies in particular to the total societal cost it entails if, on a busy road early one weekday morning, one cannot get to one's work, with the material one is to deliver or, in the worst of worlds, with the patient one has in one's ambulance or the like.

It does not only mean human frustration and irritation for those who get stuck there, but it also means delays of deliveries to important industrial processes, that those who are on their way to build up our society cannot reach the workplace where they are supposed to be, and so on. If one were to calculate the total cost of this activism, I believe it would be in the billions every year, considering the delays that arise in connection with these road blockades, if we choose to focus on that part of the activism.

I believe I speak for many Swedes when I say that it is easy to instinctively feel that those who cause society these costs should also pay them. That is not how our legislation is designed, but it is important that one at least does not celebrate being subject to a district court hearing. One should not communicate to the media that this is no problem and that one is happy to do it again because one has morality or ethics on one's side and so on. By doing so, one completely ignores the laws that I and my colleagues in this chamber enact, not least following proposals from the government.

In this case, I am thinking of Gunnar Strömer's party colleague Johan Forssell, when he was the justice policy spokesperson before the election and before the Moderaterna received the position of Minister for Justice, I believe it was on April 14, 2022, saying on SVT: Against the background of these acts, we need to raise the minimum sentences for sabotage. He meant then that imprisonment should be the minimum sentence.

Then one was perhaps not more concrete in that case, but I nevertheless experienced a sharp proposal from the Moderaternas side. It is possible that the Moderaterna now enter with this as a starting point in the negotiations when we have the general review of the sentencing scales. It would have been appreciated from my side if Strömmer as Minister for Justice, if possible, could comment on whether this is the Moderaterna's starting point in connection with the review given the positions that the Moderate Party has taken on the issue previously.

Quite regardless of this, Madam Speaker, I think it is important that we have a government basis that takes this type of criminal act, as well as others, seriously and that we succeed in achieving a general review of criminal law, not least to ensure that the full extent of the sentencing scale is utilized. When I meet voters, I hear that it is often what people get irritated about. They know that one can be sentenced to long prison terms, but they do not see it happening in practice. From the political side, we must create the conditions for our judiciary to enable this.

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

Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)

Madam Speaker! I would like to confirm that the Moderates have for many years highlighted the seriousness of the crime that we are now speaking about.

I think it goes a long way to look at the consequences this has for ordinary honest citizens on their way to work or to drop off the children at preschool or school. This also applies to goods deliveries or other business activities that are hindered in their completely peaceful progress because others consider themselves to have the right to stand in the way of a well-functioning everyday life. Already this is very serious. If it also endangers life and health on a much more literal level by, for example, preventing fire trucks or ambulances from getting through, it is extraordinarily serious.

I think that one should have a sense for the legislation we have which, at least if we look at the sentencing scales as they are designed, recognizes the seriousness of this.

When it comes to what is now being raised by Tobias Andersson and what the Moderaterna have raised for many years and raised before the election, it is not only the sentencing scales on paper but also the concrete application that is the most crucial. Therefore, it has been important for us to both shed light on sabotage against blue-light activities and conduct a special review of these rules and incorporate the fundamental perspectives even in the broad review of criminal law.

I can point to a question of importance that we are highlighting in the broad review and which also covers this crime. It is the so-called presumption against imprisonment, i.e., that a court, according to the rules that the legislator has set up today, shall choose a less intrusive penalty than imprisonment if there are grounds for it or alternatives to it.

It is not an expression of any kind of general repression to say that it is a more reasonable starting point that punishments should reflect the gravity of the crimes. If it is the case that the gravity of the crime is met by a prison sentence, it is reasonable that the starting point is also that people shall be imprisoned. As said, it is not specifically directed just at sabotage activities, but the sabotage crimes are, of course, covered by the general review.

In conclusion, I want to say that, in addition to the practical consequences we have discussed as extremely serious, there is also a deeper democratic aspect. An activism dedicated to hindering and restricting other people's freedom of expression is something that we cannot accept in a free and open democratic society. This further emphasizes the importance of reforms in this area.

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

Tobias Andersson (SD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you again for the answer from the Minister for Justice! I view it positively that the government basis will in the future review both criminal law in general and, not least, the presumption of imprisonment, which the Minister highlights in his latest statement. I believe that we will make significant progress in that work and hopefully be able to create conditions for the court to, in these cases, where it in my opinion concerns directly socially harmful activity, impose prison sentences to a greater extent than has been done so far in the 25 judgments that I have noted since 2022.

Just on the subject of freedom of speech, this is a central aspect. It is important to emphasize, Madam Speaker, that if the police intervene and break up a road blockade, this is not an action against Swedish freedom of speech. In these cases, they do not have a demonstration permit, for example. They have no constitutionally guaranteed right to block roads and delay or prevent vital social infrastructure from moving forward. There are, of course, occasions when they have had it, but there are also occasions where a group of activists have simply gone out and blocked a road and made life difficult for honest people. In those cases, they have not utilized the conditions provided in our constitution and our public order act to actually be able to demonstrate and make their opinion heard. On the contrary, they show zero respect for these. Just as the Minister highlights, it can also by definition mean that one limits someone else's opportunity to enjoy their freedom of speech.

I think it is important to emphasize this in this context. It is not a matter of me, on behalf of Sverigedemokraterna, requesting restrictions on freedom of speech. On the contrary, I want to ensure that it is used as it should be used in this case. It does not include blocking roads every day because one thinks it is fun. In that case, we need to have different legislation in place.

My final question to the Minister is whether he considers that the police in these cases have acted sufficiently forcefully against those who have blocked roads. There are examples where they have been allowed to remain, led a demonstration procession without a permit, and so on. How should the police act in these cases?

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

Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)

Madam Speaker! For easily understood reasons, I do not have the possibility to go in and assess every individual police action in every individual case. I should also refrain from doing so for other and principled reasons.

However, on an overall level, I can say that the police have a duty to intervene when people commit crimes. This is a general starting point for the police's activities, and this is naturally no exception. How one then chooses to handle it in the concrete case is up to the police. Naturally, however, the only reasonable principled starting point is that the police, in the event of ongoing criminal activity, shall intervene and stop the criminal activity.

When it comes to the outcome, I note that a judgment that was not convicting in any individual case has recently been issued. On the other hand, there are also very many examples of convicting judgments. As a whole, my impression is that the judiciary takes this crime very seriously and applies the laws and rules that apply today.

If there is a value in underlining the seriousness of this criminality – and I join that view – by ensuring from the legislator's side that there are conditions to obtain judgments that reflect this seriousness in a better way than today, it is naturally wise to, as we are now doing, review the regulatory framework to provide these conditions for the judiciary to impose even more severe penalties.

And as I said, to conclude with that basic chord: It is therefore justified not only by the far-reaching practical consequences and risks that this crime has, but also by the deeper democratic and principled reasons. The surrounding society shall mark with extraordinary clarity when this type of crime takes place.

The interpellations debate was hereby concluded.

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