Response to interpellation 2024/25:110 on the ban on conversion attempts
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
1 M argues that Sweden should be a country where everyone can live in freedom and safety without risking hatred or discrimination 1. 1 M never accepts that hbtqi persons are forced to hide their identity and argues that such attempts of influence can be met by the rules of the Penal Code 1. 1 M works to sharpen the view on honor-related violence and oppression 1. 2 M argues that more analysis is required to design an effective and practically usable regulation 2. 2 M emphasizes that the starting point is that conversion attempts should be criminalized 2. S wants concreteness and suggests that an investigation be appointed or that the legislation be moved forward. 3 S considers that the government has betrayed its promise and is selling out hbtqi persons 3. 3 S argues that hbtqi persons are subjected to conversion attempts legally while waiting for a decision 3. 4 M argues that they are working with precision to ensure that a potential criminalization actually does the job 4. 5 M claims that they cannot be blamed for the incomplete basis from the previous government 5. 5 M emphasizes that they want to avoid haste and that their commitment to the issue is genuine 5.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)
Madam Speaker! Daniel Vencu Velasquez Castro has asked the Minister for Equality and Employment whether the government will appoint a new investigation with a committee directive on banning conversion attempts in Sweden and when the Riksdag can expect to receive information on the government's work on the issue of a ban on conversion attempts. The work within the government is distributed in such a way that it is I who shall answer the interpellation.
The interpellator posed a similar question earlier this year. My answer is now as it was then that my and the government's position is crystal clear: Sweden shall be a country where everyone can live their lives in freedom and safety regardless of sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression - and this without risking being subjected to hate, threats, violence, harassment or discrimination. But it is also a reality that the reality for far too many does not look that way today.
We will never accept that LGBTQI people are forced to change, hide, or refrain from living in accordance with their sexual orientation or gender identity. Such attempts of influence can today be met with several different criminal classifications, such as assault, unlawful coercion, or harassment.
We are working on a broad front so that LGBTQI persons receive the support and protection they need. The Gender Equality Authority has, among other things, been tasked with mapping LGBTQI persons' vulnerability and risk of violence in close relationships as well as proposing concrete interventions. The Government has also given the National Centre for Women's Peace a special mandate to operate a support telephone for trans persons and non-binary persons who are subjected to violence. The Agency for Youth and Civil Society Issues has been tasked with carrying out an in-depth analysis of the need for support interventions against honor-related violence and oppression, including vulnerability to conversion attempts against young LGBTQI persons. Alongside this, work is also ongoing to develop a new and updated action plan for LGBTQI persons' equal rights and opportunities.
We know that LGBTQI persons can be particularly vulnerable in honor contexts. When it comes to sharpening society's reactions against those who perpetrate honor-related violence and oppression, the government has taken several measures. In January, 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 increase of 50 million kronor annually for the work against honor-related violence and oppression.
In addition to this, we are now analyzing at the Ministry of Justice an enhanced criminal law protection for what is often called psychological violence, against the background of an investigation submitted some time ago (Ds 2022:18 Criminal liability for psychological violence). We see that various studies show that psychological violence can occur, among other things, within a context of honor and encompass both verbal abuse as well as different forms of controlling or coercive behaviors.
The investigation that Daniel Vencu Velasquez Castro refers to had the mandate to analyze what criminal liability exists today regarding conversion attempts and to take a position on whether the criminal law protection should be strengthened. As we now know, the investigation, based on its observations, made the assessment that a specific regulation criminalizing conversion attempts should not be introduced, and the investigation also does not submit any such proposal. This was the basis that I inherited - if I may put it that way - from the previous government.
The question of how we can effectively and purposefully counter conversion attempts is the subject of ongoing analysis at the Ministry of Justice, but also in other parts of the Government Offices. I truly share the interpellant's commitment to these issues and look forward to discussing how we can ensure that Sweden is and remains a country where everyone has the right to be who they are and love whom they want.
Daniel Vencu Velasquez Castro (S)
Madam Speaker! I would like to begin by describing the response from the Minister. I did a small exercise where I compared the answer I received ten months ago with the answer I have received now. They are almost identical. Ten months have passed since we last had this debate, and what I can see is that the government has no other analytical picture of the situation regarding conversion attempts – even though MUCF has submitted a new report, which is a much larger report than the one that came two years ago, where it is described that the situation for young hbtqi persons continues to be extremely serious. This applies in particular to those hbtqi persons who are in a context of honor. It is described that conversion attempts are a widespread phenomenon.
The mapping and the report that Strömmer refers to, Madam Speaker, which came in 2022, show that 18 percent of young LGBTQI people have been subjected to conversion attempts in some form. Of these, 5 percent have been subjected to torture-like conversion attempts.
The investigation was presented in July 2023. I am well aware that the additional directives that the Social Democratic government gave after MUCF's mapping did not lead to the investigation proceeding to propose a ban on conversion attempts. First, the additional directives came, and then it was announced that they would not proceed. Gunnar Strömmer and Paulina Brandberg then said that the issue would continue to be analyzed and prepared at the Government Offices.
We must also remember that the only promise to LGBTQ+ people in the Tidö Agreement was that conversion attempts would be criminalized.
After this, MUCF came with a new report. The Minister and I have had a debate about this. I and Paulina Brandberg discussed the issue on SVT during this year's Pride in Stockholm. My question to Gunnar Strömmer is therefore: How much more does the Government Offices need to analyze this? What is it that is unclear when it comes to conversion attempts in Sweden? I have a bit of difficulty understanding it.
We can also look at the reports and reviews that have been made by the media. DN has more than ten articles where they have reviewed this phenomenon. In 2022, they showed imams who compare homosexuality with an alcohol addiction, which can be cured. They showed pastors who offer parents to send their children on conversion trips. In connection with this, Ebba Busch said during Almedalsveckan 2022 that this was despicable and that it must be banned.
DN also showed that there is a global network that works systematically with conversion therapy that is linked to Sweden and the Nordic countries. This I believe and hope that Gunnar Strömmer knows about.
My question can still be repeated: What is it that is unclear for the government when it comes to conversion attempts, particularly of young hbtqi persons?
One can only assume that the number of unreported cases is very large. One can imagine for oneself what it would be like if, throughout one's entire life and from all adult role models and friends, one had been told that it is the devil's work that is haunting one's brain. If one is then asked if one is being subjected to a conversion attempt, it is very understandable that one does not answer yes. The number of unreported cases is probably much larger than the 18 percent that we know are subjected to it.
I would like to have some concretization from the Minister: What else needs to become clear?
Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)
Madam Speaker! Nothing needs to be clearer regarding the problem as such. When we say that more analysis is required, it is therefore not about the gravity of the situation that far too many young people find themselves in, as Daniel Vencu Velasquez Castro refers to. I completely agree that to the extent that new data has been added regarding the description of the problem, it has only underscored the extent of the problem and the gravity of the consequences for individuals. In that part, there is no need at all for further analysis.
We have said from the very beginning that this is such a large and serious problem that today's legal regulations are not sufficient to address the problem. But the starting point is the seriousness of the problem, and that is not what is the subject of further analysis.
What is, however, the subject of further analysis is how the problem should be approached legally. It is this that is the question.
Our starting point has at all times been that conversion attempts should be criminalized. More people have had that starting point. There was an investigation that was commissioned by the previous government which had the task of looking at that question and submitting proposals in that part. But I can state that no proposals came from that investigation. It was there that we began our work.
When we say that this needs to be analyzed, it is therefore not an expression that there should be uncertainties regarding the depth or scope of the problem, its consequences for individuals, or for that matter, the consequences for our free, open society. What the question concerns is how we can, in the most effective way possible, ensure that this type of abuse is prevented and countered and that, when abuses do occur, those responsible for them are hit by accurate and effective sanctions.
The investigator points out, not without reason, that there are other criminal provisions that also apply to this situation. The question is then whether they can in some way be sharpened so that they become more effective against just this situation.
I also mentioned the inquiry regarding psychological violence that was also commissioned during the previous parliamentary term. There, the investigator's proposals unfortunately received quite extensive and rightly justified criticism for being difficult to implement in practice. I do, however, really want to emphasize that the problem the inquiry addressed, namely the occurrence of psychological violence, is real.
When I say that we are analyzing, it also means that in that case we are working on reworking these proposals, so that we can return to the Riksdag with a well-elaborated bill that targets psychological violence and will also be able to be used to handle the situation and the problems we are now talking about regarding various attempts at conversion, not least of vulnerable young people.
With this said, I have not ruled out that we need to do more, in line with what was expressed in the supplementary directives to the investigation which subsequently did not come with any proposals, that is, a criminalization that targets precisely the conversion attempts. But how this should in that case be designed, delimited, and interact with other sentencing increases as well as with new penal provisions that have not existed previously, for example regarding psychological violence, and how such a regulation should function in a practical and effective way and achieve the benefit we want it to achieve is still subject to analysis. This does not mean that nothing is happening. On the contrary, it is a very serious piece of work, and I hope to be able to return with more concrete answers in not too long a time.
Daniel Vencu Velasquez Castro (S)
Madam Speaker! We have discussed exactly this question before, that is, the process regarding legislation on a ban on conversion attempts. I have great respect for the legislative process in Sweden. I understand that questions need to be investigated. We need to have a thorough basis in order not to quickly and thoughtlessly carry out legislation in Sweden. This we already discussed ten months ago.
My question was not why the government is not moving forward with legislation to ban conversion attempts. My question was: Why is a new investigation not being appointed?
What Gunnar Strömmer says is that the analysis of the situation does not need to become clearer, but it must become clearer how the whole thing is to be carried out, and that is what must be worked on. Then the government can appoint an inquiry that looks into that. There is a difference between appointing an inquiry with committee directives that solely aim at how we can prohibit conversion attempts in Sweden and giving additional directives to an already ongoing inquiry.
Madam Speaker! I fully understand that the Ministry of Justice is under high pressure right now, for good reasons. In many respects, we Social Democrats agree with the government on the measures that must be taken in various areas that the Ministry of Justice is responsible for.
One such issue is precisely the ban on conversion attempts, and here I must nevertheless say that the government exhibits a rarely seen dexterity. One has a parliamentary majority behind one when it comes to banning conversion attempts. Ahead of the 2022 election, it was only one party, Sverigedemokraterna, that did not express support for a ban on conversion attempts.
Gunnar Strömer's own Prime Minister stood in Pride Park and said - I heard him myself - that conversion attempts must not occur in Sweden. But it is the government that has the power to ban conversion attempts.
It has been a year and four months since the investigation submitted its proposals. Why has the government not appointed a new investigation? It is incomprehensible to me.
One gets somewhat different answers depending on which minister one speaks with. I asked this question to Paulina Brandberg, even though I fully understand that it is Minister Strömmer who answers it. But Paulina Brandberg has said that this is being prepared with the starting point that conversion attempts should be prohibited. However, that is not what Minister Gunnar Strömmer says.
I would like to have some concretization: What is it that applies? Is the government going to appoint an inquiry to see how one can proceed with a ban on conversion attempts, or is it a question that is still open for debate and interpretation? Is it a question that one can still say yes or no to? Or is it a yes that applies, and the question is only about the path there?
I would also like to say that this is somewhat symptomatic when it comes to LGBTQI issues and this government. We all remember how it was with the gender identity law this spring. I really hope that this does not become an issue where LGBTQI people are again used as a punching bag.
It becomes unclear when it is stated in the Tidö Agreement that one wants to criminalize this. I assume that Jimmie Åkesson was present when the Tidö Agreement was concluded.
Where is the shoe pinching? That is what I do not understand. I would like to have concretization. It has been a year and four months. Appoint an inquiry that looks into this – we support that – or move forward!
Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)
Madam Speaker! I have extraordinary respect for all those who see the depth, breadth, and seriousness of this problem - we are very many who do. If one is to address this problem, it is also very important that one does so effectively and with great precision.
It would have been much simpler to act quickly if the material that the previous government left behind at the Government Offices had been sufficient. Now, that was not the case. Unfortunately, this does not only apply to this legislative product. It also applies to other legislative products that could be effective against this issue, for example, when it comes to psychological violence.
After having referred the investigation and received the consultation responses, we are working on a broad front with all the tools that can in different ways reach those who engage in this type of very serious abuse in the form of conversion attempts.
We are analyzing the issue further in order to, of course, achieve precision. It is a precision that, until now, has not existed in any legislative product intended to address this problem. It is about achieving such precision in all issues, so that we know that a criminalization, if we are to take further steps in this area through a criminalization, actually does the job.
I have a great deal of respect for the impatience. Important issues should preferably have been resolved a long time ago. I gladly accept this as, so to speak, a green light for us to move the processes forward. But it is not justified to question either the purpose of the process or the process as such - on the contrary. In light of previous processes that have not done the job, we want a process that will do the job. That is what we are working on. I promise to return with further information when that process is complete and clear, including the question of an investigation that takes these issues further.
Daniel Vencu Velasquez Castro (S)
Madam Speaker! It is not unjustified to have a certain suspicion regarding the government base's view on LGBTQI issues, Gunnar Strömmer. This is something I believe LGBTQI persons felt very clearly this spring during the entire debate surrounding the gender identity law. It is, therefore, not unfounded.
I actually think it smells of broken promises from the government. There is less than half of the mandate period left, and one has not delivered on this, Madam Speaker. I think one is selling out LGBTQ+ people. To the benefit of what, however, is unclear.
It is clear that I wonder how the coordination is going regarding this issue when it did not go so well the last time we had an LGBTQI issue in the chamber. It is not strange, Strömmer, that I have this question and reflection.
It is becoming quite clear: During this mandate period, conversion attempts will probably not be prohibited in Sweden. It is a broken promise. I can quote what Ulf Kristersson said during Pride: It should not be permitted to try to influence people's most private lives. It is an important signal that Sweden is a tolerant country, that we put our foot down and say that there are things that we do not intend to compromise on.
Obviously, a compromise has been made, because one could have proceeded. One could have commissioned an investigation as soon as the previous investigation's proposals arrived.
I must actually say that LGBTQI people are subjected to conversion attempts while we wait. It has been ten months since we had the last debate. During this time, LGBTQI people have been subjected to conversion attempts, completely legally. I find that to be despicable. I think it is a bottom grade for a free country like Sweden that LGBTQI people are not as free as everyone else. This is where the government must deliver and make Sweden a free country for everyone.
Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)
Madam Speaker! What is characteristic of this government is that we get things done. This also applies to the legislation that Daniel Vencu Velasquez Castro refers to and which, if we are to give an accurate description of the handling of that issue, obviously also caused quite large convulsions within the Social Democrats. We found a way to move that issue through the Riksdag. It is an expression of a pragmatic approach to parliamentary realities, where we ensure that things get done. This is not an exception.
As said: Had we received a basis that would have given us the opportunity to proceed with legislation, this would have been in place already today. Now we did not receive such a basis, but instead we received an incomplete basis in these parts. This cannot preferably be blamed on this government. We neither appointed the investigation nor formulated the supplementary directives. We did, however, produce, so to speak, proposals that were missing in precisely this area. That is the reality that I have to handle also in this area, if we are now to speak about the inheritance.
Now we will find a way to address the problem that, among others, the Prime Minister has described repeatedly. We have underlined the seriousness of the issue. Our loyalty towards the process is dedicated to addressing the problems. On the other hand, I do not intend to take on my responsibility to produce hasty work when it concerns a regulation that will not do the job.
We are now looking at the specific issue of conversion attempts. We are also looking at this from other perspectives. For example, we are now dealing with the half-finished product regarding psychological violence, which was also lying and waiting for us when we came in.
When it comes to the question of whether things and items are delivered or not, I say: Let us see what time brings! I can assure Daniel Vencu Velasquez Castro that the commitment in this matter is genuine. That is precisely why it is very important that the solutions that emerge will do the job. I intend to take that responsibility in this matter.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.