Response to interpellation 2024/25:393 on effective and meaningful mapping of intolerance

Statsrådet Paulina Brandberg (L)

Madam Speaker! I have been asked if I intend to initiate a supplementary study that will conduct a broad and unconditional mapping of intolerance and racism in Sweden.

As I have explained previously, this type of attitude survey constitutes one of several important sources of knowledge regarding the occurrence of different forms of racism and intolerance in society. The Forum for Living History's mandate (A2024/01392) includes investigating attitudes toward and perceptions of vulnerable groups such as foreign-born persons, Afro-Swedes, Jews, Muslims, Roma, Sámi, and LGBTQI persons. The purpose of the study is thus to focus on different forms of racism and intolerance. Against this background, there are no plans to initiate a complementary study of the kind that the interpellor requests.

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

Staffan Eklöf (SD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you to the Minister for the answer and for the fact that the Minister is here and can answer further questions!

From the Minister's response, it appears that the government wants to focus the mapping of intolerance solely on intolerance towards certain groups, which are the same groups as in a previous study. The groups mentioned are those born abroad, Afro-Swedes, Jews, Muslims, Roma, Sámi, and LGBTQI persons. These are groups that the Minister believes are particularly likely to be subjected to intolerance.

I also consider the groups that the government and the minister mention to be important to include in a mapping. The problem is that more groups than those selected are vulnerable.

Intolerance and racism are a scourge for those who are affected, regardless of who is affected, and also risk harming society. A good mapping is a good approach, but in order to be able to solve problems, one must naturally first formulate the problems in as accurate a way as possible and with as good a resolution as possible.

The Minister answers that she wants to focus on different forms of racism and intolerance. But I think the result will be that the focus will be on equal forms of racism and intolerance. The groups identified are equal in the sense that there is a preconceived notion on the part of the Minister that it is precisely these groups that run the risk of being subjected to this.

The problem with limiting the mapping to the groups that the government believes are the ones being targeted is, partly, that the results of the studies are strongly influenced by the question itself and risk cementing incorrect perceptions of what intolerance in Sweden looks like; partly, that intolerance and racism against people outside these groups will remain unknown and thus remain invisible; and partly, that one does not get the complete picture and therefore not the full understanding of how the intolerance arises. I mean that understanding is absolutely crucial in order to be able to counter intolerance in an effective way.

In my interpellation, I just described such a broad and unconditional study that does not limit itself to a few groups. The study was based on a survey, where the respondents were asked to state whether they strongly dislike any of many listed groups in society. I shall say that it was a study by Persson and Widmalm at Uppsala University.

Firstly, 72 percent disappointingly answered that yes, they strongly dislike a group of people. Then the respondents were asked to indicate which group they disliked most. The groups corresponding to those enumerated by the government received the following results: immigrants 1.9 percent, Jews 0 percent, Muslims 5 percent, Roma 0.8 percent, Sámi 0.2 percent, homosexuals 0.5 percent and transsexuals 0 percent.

Intolerance existed instead towards other groups, primarily towards us Sweden Democrats with 23 percent. It also concerned vaccine opponents with 17 percent, abortion opponents with 17 percent, climate crisis deniers – whatever that is – with 8 percent, environmental fanatics with 7 percent and nationalists with 6 percent.

Even though one should not place too much weight on a single study, I note that the cited unconditional study indicates that the intolerance in Sweden does not look at all as the government assumes. Therefore, we need an additional broad mapping.

I therefore want to ask the following: Is the Minister comfortable with the fact that a broad mapping is not being conducted and that one might even reinforce a stereotypical notion of intolerance?

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

Statsrådet Paulina Brandberg (L)

Madam Speaker! As I said in my opening remarks, the mandate of Forum för levande historia is one of several important sources of knowledge regarding the occurrence of different forms of racism and intolerance in society.

I mean that all scientifically conducted investigations of intolerance are important. But I also mean that there are differences between intolerance that targets, for example, people's ethnicity or identity and intolerance that is based on differences of opinion. I mean that one needs to distinguish that.

With that said, the current assignment we are talking about here today is an assignment given in a context where I am very proud that we, from the government's side, have recently presented two new action plans. One has been presented within the framework of the work against racism, and there are certain groups that we believe we need to focus on extra much in that work. The other concerns the rights and opportunities of LGBTQI persons. This assignment, which we have given to Forum för levande historia, is carried out within the framework of this work. But it is of course important to continue the work of identifying which groups are vulnerable in our society for various reasons.

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

Staffan Eklöf (SD)

Madam Speaker! As I interpret it, the government is not carrying out a broad and unconditional mapping but instead relies on the research in that regard. One can ask what value a limited study has and whether it is a good use of taxpayers' money.

The Minister argues, based on this single study, which is actually only an example, that there is a difference between intolerance towards people because of their opinions and intolerance because of something that is innate. I agree with that. That is how it is, but I mean that it is not so easy to know which intolerance has its basis in opinions and which is directed towards what is innate or given in some other way.

For example, what appears to be dislike of people for their ethnicity can actually be dislike of the views that accompany the ethnicity, such as Islamism, and what appears to be dislike of views can be dislike of people.

I have many times experienced a contempt towards us Sverigedemokrater. It can be clothed in different perceptions of how we "are". The final receipt that they dislike us as human beings comes when people continue to hate us even though they themselves have adopted our views.

I will briefly point out other examples that do not have the same starting point as the Uppsala study. There are two studies that have mapped intolerance towards Christians in school. Sveriges kristna råd has conducted an interview study, and the Clapham Institute has also conducted a study. Many Christian youths are bullied for their faith. They are intimidated into silence and hide their faith. Some teachers even looked the other way regarding harassment and bullying. It was concluded that every second Christian youth feels offended because of their faith. This is also a group that is not included here.

We also know that there is an intolerance towards Swedes. It is often denied in the public debate, but we know that it exists. Then we do not know how widespread it is. It must be mapped out. We know that Swedish girls are considered impure by some. Furthermore, we are aware of some horrific cases of racist violence with anti-Swedish motives. One example is what happened at Solna cemetery with severe assault, torture, and rape over a long period, but there are many examples. The government's mapping also does not hit this intolerance.

There are studies that point to intolerance when it comes to recruitment. The Institute for Labour Market and Education Policy Evaluation produced a report – admittedly in 2012, but still. It was about fake recruitments, and one could vary a number of variables and look at the outcome. It turned out that the characteristic most commonly rejected by employers was people with severe obesity. This is also a group that is not captured by Swedish anti-discrimination legislation. Those with severe obesity had 83 percent less chance of obtaining employment. High age, high historical sick leave, and number of children also played a major role for the chances. Other groups were also seen. It is a mixture of groups that are hit or missed by the government's mapping.

I believe that our anti-discrimination legislation and the government's reasoning are somewhat one-sided. We have ended up in a self-reinforcing loop that we must break. If we do not break it, we cement prejudices and will not be able to counter intolerance and racism in an effective way.

Is the Minister now convinced that we need a broad, unconditional mapping of intolerance and racism in Sweden and that it would be very good if the government did it?

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

Statsrådet Paulina Brandberg (L)

Madam Speaker! I want to start by commenting on something the interpellator said. I perceived it as the interpellator grouping together ethnicity, or identity, with opinions. I mean that it is very dangerous to do that, because it is precisely this that creates racism. I can say that I myself, for example, feel an extremely great intolerance towards Islamism, and even if one can say that all Islamists are Muslims, most Muslims are not Islamists. That is why it is so important precisely to distinguish between this so that one is not labeled with characteristics based on the identity one is born into.

The assignment we have given to Forum för levande historia is, as mentioned, within the framework of the work we have done with the government's two action plans against racism and for the rights and opportunities of hbtqi persons. When we developed these action plans, we naturally had a basis. We have, among other things, had statistics from Brå, where the hate crime statistics show which groups are most vulnerable to hate crimes. This is one of the factors we have had as a basis in this work and when we identified which groups we want to target with specific measures.

This is, as said, a mandate we have given. There are absolutely other groups that can also live in vulnerability, and we will have to see in our upcoming work if we see a need to map out further forms of intolerance, racism, or other types of vulnerability. It is, however, nothing that is on the table right now.

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

Staffan Eklöf (SD)

Madam Speaker! I did not think I would have to do it, but now I must explain a bit more clearly what I said about it not being easy to know which intolerance and racism actually concerns person and which concerns opinion. This is, therefore, about interpreting ordinary people's answers in a survey. What do they actually mean when they write in a certain way? It is naturally not about some kind of taking a stand.

When it comes to the studies the government has used as a basis for selecting these groups, they have also based themselves on this selection of groups. I cannot, of course, account for every study, but it is often the case that one focuses on the grounds of discrimination in the anti-discrimination legislation. If the minister actually looks at all these studies, I think she will see that it is constantly these grounds. One enters a self-reinforcing loop.

I must also raise a final criticism regarding the government's mapping. It is that Forum för levande historia perhaps are not the best executors of the assignment. An article in the newspaper Fokus on October 25, 2023, described a course on Islamophobia that Forum för levande historia organized some days after Hamas's terrorist attacks. The course appeared to be a mishmash of prejudices and politicization. The article described politically motivated misquotations, irrelevant associations, anecdotal information instead of substantiated information, and other methodological flaws. This is dangerous, because the course was aimed at teachers. We cannot have skewed information in this context.

I hope I have made it clear in this debate that the assignment the government has set for a mapping of intolerance in Sweden is insufficient. I appeal one last time to the minister to launch a complementary, unconditional mapping and to ensure that Forum för levande historia has been restructured according to the Minister for Culture's promise.

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

Statsrådet Paulina Brandberg (L)

Madam Speaker! When it comes to the statistics we have received as a basis from Brå, they are based, among other things, on the national safety survey, where people are asked if they feel unsafe and if they have been victims of crime. Through this, it can then be seen which groups themselves report the greatest vulnerability. There are, of course, also other mappings and data that form the basis for this. I mean that the groups mentioned in this mapping are groups that deserve special attention and targeted interventions.

With this, I would like to thank you for this debate.

The interpellations debate was hereby concluded.

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