Response to interpellation 2024/25:455 on multiculturalism in Sweden

Statsrådet Johan Forssell (M)

Madam Speaker! Tobias Andersson has asked me whether I intend to promote or oppose multiculturalism in Sweden, or whether I intend to take some other stance towards multiculturalism.

Let me begin by stating that the word multiculturalism obviously evokes emotions. This may be because it means very different things to different people. For many, it means nothing more than that people can look different or celebrate different holidays. That is the definition I have used during the interview occasions that the member has noted.

The extensive immigration of previous years has caused great strain. Integration problems now characterize most policy areas. Therefore, the government is changing the migration and integration policy.

The government is taking measures to reduce asylum-related immigration to sustainable levels. Those who have received a deportation decision shall leave Sweden, and the authorities' conditions to intervene against persons who commit crimes or otherwise pose a threat to our open society are strengthened. At the same time, the government is tightening the requirements to become a Swedish citizen.

Those who come here shall share Swedish core values and respect our culture. The expectations and requirements must therefore become clearer and be tightened in order to safeguard our open and free society, where diversity is a part. If one does not want to become a part of this community, one should not seek out Sweden.

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

Tobias Andersson (SD)

Madam Speaker! I thank you for the answer from Johan Forssell.

Just as I described in my interpellation, Migration Minister Forssell expressed himself in the following way in an interview with Aftonbladet: ”Sweden will be a multicultural society, because it is today.” Despite the minister adding that those who come here are expected to follow Swedish laws and values and speak the Swedish language, the statement drew great criticism among the Tidö parties' own voters.

The criticism came not least after the minister tried to clarify himself in SVT by claiming that multiculturalism enriches. He said: ”In many ways, there is much that also enriches our country.” When the journalist asked ”What then?”, the minister elaborated on his answer as follows: ”Well, differences. That we are not all the same, that we bring different cultures with us, that one has different religions for that part, that one celebrates different holidays.” Even after this quote, the minister added that it is however important that we are united under some important values, which in my opinion is undeniably positive in the context.

Madam Speaker! I do not doubt that Johan Forssell himself fundamentally has a fairly sound attitude towards the concept of multiculturalism. I appreciate that the Minister has tried to nuance his statements in subsequent interviews, at the Sweden Democrats' group meeting here in the Riksdag, and in his response to my interpellation here today. Johan Forssell's definition of the concept is that people can look different and celebrate different holidays. It is fundamentally an indisputable fact that the Minister uses to define this.

I believe that the reason for the voters', and my own, reaction to this statement, however, is based on the fact that multiculturalism for most means so much more. It is not infrequently used as a substitute for advocating multiculturalism – which rather concerns the mixing of different cultures. It is about all colorful cultures being mixed together into some black sludge at the expense of the majority culture's own uniqueness and value.

Given the Moderates' track record in areas such as immigration, integration, and multiculturalism, it is also not strange that the voters read something else into the minister's answer than what he himself intended. At least SD's voters remember with anger how Johan Forssell's former party leader and at the time Sweden's Prime Minister, Fredrik Reinfeldt, expressed it: "Only the Swedish is barbaric. The rest of the development has come from outside." This is a multiculturalist view of the matter, as the meaning is that the mixing of the Swedish is the only positive in our development. It is, in my opinion, a reprehensible statement.

Even in moderate circles, however, the use of multiculturalism has now in the recent past led to criticism. I can take the example of the chairman of the Moderate Youth League, Douglas Thor, who told Svenska Dagbladet: "I think the concept of multiculturalism is bad, it is so charged and implies a society we do not want."

Madam Speaker! I will have reason to return to everything wrong with multiculturalism and multiculturalism in subsequent remarks. The question I posed in this interpellation was, as stated, whether the Minister intends to promote or oppose multiculturalism in Sweden or whether the Minister holds some other position toward the concept. If we set aside the issue of definition for the moment – I share the Minister's view that it can be difficult and that different values are placed on what this means by definition – the Minister is welcome to answer the question of whether he will promote multiculturalism or oppose it, regardless of definition.

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

Nima Gholam Ali Pour (SD)

Madam Speaker! It is important that the public understands the definition of a multicultural society. A multicultural society is simply a society where the person who has immigrated to Sweden does not have to adapt to Swedish society. In a multicultural society, the immigrant can choose their cultural identity.

If one can then choose one's cultural identity, one can also choose to opt out of Swedish values and a Swedish identity. Then we get areas like Rosengård, that is, multicultural areas where hardly anyone speaks Swedish. The area as a whole has chosen the Arabic culture over the Swedish. It is precisely this that is multiculturalism, and that is why it becomes problematic when the Minister for Migration, through his statements, supports a multicultural society.

The Minister for Migration's statements also signal to newcomers that they do not actually need to adapt to Sweden and Swedish culture, as Sweden, according to the Minister for Migration, is a multicultural society. Quite a few in this country, whether one is Swedish or an immigrant, support the idea that those who arrive in Sweden should adapt to Swedish society and its values. Therefore, the support for what is called the multicultural society is not so strong.

This can also be seen in people's migration patterns, where almost everyone moves away from multicultural areas – regardless of whether one is ethnically Swedish or an immigrant. People move to areas where Swedish values are stronger. This is done because people in Sweden do not want their children to grow up in the cultural exclusion that multiculturalism actually entails.

I really want to emphasize that there is a definition of what multiculturalism is. In a multicultural society, the immigrant can live exactly as they did in their home country. There is no interpretation of multiculturalism that deviates from that definition, and that is precisely why it is so important that the Minister for Migration does not support a multicultural society and thus sends the wrong signals to newly arrived migrants.

As I have understood it, the Minister for Migration also wants those who come to Sweden to adapt to Swedish society. Consequently, the Minister for Migration can in no way support a multicultural society.

Let us also mention what the consequences of a multicultural society can be. When immigrants do not adapt to Swedish society but instead, within certain geographical areas, reinforce the culture of the home country, we get the parallel societies we see in Sweden today. That immigrants opt out of the Swedish language, social codes in Swedish society, and Swedish values leads to unemployment and social problems.

A multicultural society creates the basis for the immigrants' exclusion. The best message all those in power can give to immigrants is that we live in a monocultural society, where the Swedish culture is the culture that everyone who wants to be included in society must adapt to. That is actually the truth. That is what Sweden looks like. If you do not learn Swedish and if you live according to the home country's norms, it is just as well that you go home, because you are and will remain a burden.

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

Statsrådet Johan Forssell (M)

Madam Speaker! Thanks to Tobias Andersson, who has written this interpellation!

I thought it was very good that Tobias Andersson in his post so clearly stated that there are different definitions of this concept, because that is precisely the case. I then understood that Nima Gholam Ali Pour did not agree but rather seemed to see only one definition. It perhaps shows why this discussion becomes so very confusing.

I can state that there are different definitions, and it is actually something I believe the Sweden Democrats also write clearly in their principle program. One makes a definition of this, and it naturally means that there are other definitions. Otherwise, one would not need to write that precisely this is their own definition.

It is clear that if one defines these concepts as parallel societies, that people are suffering, that women are being treated in a very negative way or as unfree – that is, a long series of the problems we have unfortunately seen emerge in Sweden over several years – then naturally this is a very serious problem.

I want to be very clear: here, zero tolerance applies. There is no tolerance or acceptance whatsoever for the type of harmful values that today hold so many people in a very harmful grip – not least many young women and girls. Regarding this, we are also currently implementing major reforms.

Then, of course, there are other aspects. This year we celebrate 250 years of Jewish life and Jewish culture in Sweden. It does not have to be harmful; there is indeed much there that has been good and that is good for Sweden. This is actually something that the government chooses to support, and it is a decision that the Sverigedemokraterna have well been involved in making.

We also have freedom of religion in Sweden. This too is actually a cornerstone in our country.

Madam Speaker! How one defines different concepts is somewhat a question of semantics. For me, it is important to look at reforms and concrete societal problems, for example, that there is currently not a sufficiently strong majority culture. Another example is the lack of freedom that has unfortunately spread in Sweden. Above all, it is about what we are doing now to actually change the situation. The truth, Madam Speaker, is that we are currently implementing larger changes and more and more powerful reforms than any other government has done previously.

This is probably a poor term, and it can be discussed in different ways. It is not a term I use, but I received a question about it. I am more focused on concrete reforms, and those are what we do.

As mentioned, a lot is happening. Today, news came that the Swedish Migration Agency is strengthening controls in citizenship cases. We are now, in practice, rolling out entirely new legislation regarding Swedish citizenship. This is crucial both for us to tackle the problems that exist regarding integration and for one to be proud of being a citizen. It is important and reasonable that one can the Swedish language. It is important and reasonable that requirements are set on social studies. It is important and reasonable that one has not committed crimes but has lived in a responsible manner.

We are also introducing a completely new principle that one must have self-sufficiency in order to be granted a Swedish citizenship. This is a very important bridge to the principle that, in reality, has founded all the prosperity we have today, namely the work principle. It must pay to work. It must pay to be ambitious. It must pay to be involved and contribute.

So, Madam Speaker, I believe that we will manage to tackle the social problems that exist and move Sweden forward.

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

Tobias Andersson (SD)

Madam Speaker! I thank the Minister for the answer and the account of many of the good things that come from the Minister's department.

Questions were raised regarding the Sweden Democrats' definition of multiculturalism. I can clarify that there is no definition of this concept that any Sweden Democrat considers positive in principle. Regardless of how one chooses to define multiculturalism and what one includes in this concept, you will not encounter any party colleague of mine who says that they appreciate multiculturalism.

The Minister's account of the concept became somewhat unclear. He now said that this is a bad concept that he himself does not use. Previously, he has said that multiculturalism is something fundamentally positive. It then becomes difficult for our voters to follow the rhetoric, not least in a situation where Sverigedemokratiska voters daily seek me and my party colleagues and wonder when the great shift in migration policy will come.

Much has happened – we see, among other things, the lowest asylum-related migration levels since measurements in the area began, and the minister also mentioned a few other things. Our voters have, however, chosen to focus on the distribution of citizenship in their criticism and regarding what they wish had been done differently. When the responsible minister speaks warmly about multiculturalism, one can imagine that it exacerbates the frustration or uncertainty that some of our voters highlight, not infrequently to me and my party colleagues.

Let us look at this bad concept, as Johan Forssell calls it, and what he himself put into it when he was explaining it on SVT. As I mentioned in my previous speech, the minister said that it is about differences. Not everyone is the same. We bring with us different cultures and, in that respect, different religions, and we celebrate different holidays. It was therefore the definition that the minister himself gave to Sveriges Television when he elaborated on what he considers to be positive about this.

I do not understand the intrinsic value in what the minister exemplified with. What intrinsic value is there in having different religions in a society? One must absolutely stand behind freedom of religion, but what is the intrinsic value? What is it that is fundamentally positive about the differences that the minister listed on Sveriges Television?

Most countries where many differences are gathered have been filled with conflicts throughout history. It is very difficult to point to a country, a state, or an area where differences of the kind that the minister himself puts into the concept of multiculturalism have led to something fundamentally positive so that this has had an intrinsic value. I am not saying that one cannot reach an agreement, at least not if we ensure that the Swedish culture constitutes a majority culture that others adapt to in order to thereby become a part of society in the way the minister mentioned, but I find it difficult to understand that it would fundamentally be positive with the differences that he exemplified in Sveriges Television.

One of those who perhaps has studied this the most is the Harvard professor Robert Putnam, who already many years ago conducted a study on over 30,000 Americans to measure how social capital, trust, relationships, and the willingness to contribute to the local community are affected by multiculturalism, diversity, or whatever term one wants to use. The conclusion was this: The more multiculturalism and the more differences, the less trust within society – the less one wants to contribute, the less one wants to help one's neighbor, and the less people strive for the same thing.

What does the minister consider the intrinsic value of multiculturalism to be? He has, after all, described multiculturalism as something positive regardless of how one chooses to define it.

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

Nima Gholam Ali Pour (SD)

Madam Speaker! It is important to understand that multiculturalism is not a descriptive concept. It is not about what society looks like today, but about what kind of society one wants. One therefore cannot say that Sweden is a multicultural society because there are many kebab shops. Swedish candy is sold in Saudi Arabia, but this does not make Saudi Arabia a multicultural society. It is Saudi norms that apply in Saudi Arabia, despite the fact that they have Swedish candy.

The same applies in Sweden. Individual foreign elements, such as kebab, do not make Sweden a multicultural society. The question that decides the whole thing is whether it is the Swedes who should adapt to those who come here with a different culture or whether it is the immigrants who should adapt to the Swedish culture.

Even the Moderates write in the final report that the Moderates' integration commission produced that integration is about respecting Swedish law, about understanding values that many Swedes share, and about understanding the norms of the majority society and, to a large extent, adapting to them.

If one has said that it is the norms of the Swedish majority society that apply and that it is those that immigrants must adapt to, one has fundamentally rejected a multicultural society. Sweden cannot be both a multicultural society and a functioning society. A country can only have one unifying culture, and in Sweden, it is the Swedish culture that must apply.

The Minister for Migration cannot have it both ways. Either one considers that immigrants should adapt to Swedish society, or one advocates for multiculturalism, where integration becomes something impossible.

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

Statsrådet Johan Forssell (M)

Madam Speaker! I want to clarify that what I said on Sveriges Television was that differences enrich; it was this concept I used. It is possible that Tobias Andersson equates differences with multiculturalism. However, it is precisely the Sweden Democrats' definition of this, and that definition is something the Sweden Democrats must stand by. I have been clear about how I define the concept and what I include in it.

I have also said that it becomes a poor term precisely because there are such large differences. It can mean different things for different people. This perhaps explains why it is stated in the Sweden Democrats' principle program that there are different definitions.

I have received these questions from the Sweden Democrats several times. I have been at their parliamentary group, and I have spoken out on Sveriges Television and other media. I have already answered these questions. I actually believe that even the Sweden Democrats' voters are more interested in concrete reforms to tackle the problems that for all too many years have been allowed to become entrenched in this country than in the almost philosophical discussions and the questions that my colleagues from the Sweden Democrats pose to me. There is surely another place, possibly the radio program Filosofiska rummet, where one can discuss this, but I am not the right person to answer this here today.

I focus instead on the concrete reforms we are now implementing, and I would like to point them out. This concerns, among other things, citizenship and requirements for an honest way of life and requirements for language and social studies. It is actually very strange that this is still lacking in Sweden in order to become a citizen. Being a citizen should be the very finest thing one can become in our country. It also concerns the requirement for self-sufficiency that we are now reintroducing and which has not existed in Sweden for 50 years, so it is certainly a historical reform.

We are also crystal clear on another matter, namely the important Swedish value that has built Sweden strong: It must pay to work. Therefore, we are proposing a benefit ceiling so that it always pays to work and so that one cannot stack benefits on top of each other and not go to a job.

We are also raising the age limit for marriage from 18 to 21 years. This is also an important reform to tackle the forced marriages that unfortunately exist in Sweden and which hold many women and sometimes even girls in a very strong grip of unfreedom. This is something we can never accept in Sweden. We must be crystal clear as soon as we see harmful values that cause people to be treated poorly and when there is unfreedom and norms that are more reminiscent of the Middle Ages than of today's modern Sweden. Let there be no uncertainty whatsoever in this.

The government is now implementing these historical reforms to address the problems that have emerged over many years. I could also mention more reforms.

My answer to the question is that the focus for this debate should be on which reforms we are implementing. One can certainly have an interesting discussion about semantics and philosophical concepts, but as Migration Minister, I have been clear about how I view this and which reforms we are currently implementing at a high pace to tackle these problems. I would gladly have received an interpellation about this and what we are doing right now instead of an interpellation about a philosophical discussion.

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

Tobias Andersson (SD)

Madam Speaker! I thank the Minister for the answer, even though I can take the opportunity to point out that the subject of the interpellation is up to the member who submitted it. My question was whether the Minister intends to oppose or promote multiculturalism or take some other stance towards multiculturalism. That is, therefore, the theme of today's debate.

I certainly appreciate much of what the Minister for Migration has done in this area together with my party colleagues in the Committee on Social Insurance, but the Minister cannot escape the fact that the theme of the debate is precisely his attitude towards multiculturalism and what he, in his capacity as Minister, intends to do on this theme, regardless of how one chooses to define this. The Minister is welcome to take the opportunity to clarify this in his final speech.

The reason we are talking about both multiculturalism and differences is that the minister himself, when he was asked by SVT what multiculturalism is, said that it was differences and then described what these differences could consist of. Among other things, he linked it to the fact that we have different religions.

Madam Speaker! My question remains: What is the positive intrinsic value of differences in a society? Here the difference becomes clear, because I believe that differences create conflicts in a society more easily than similarities do. I can point out many of the conflicts in Swedish society and state that they have to do with differences. It is about differences between and within religions, within specific ethnic groups, and so on. I am not saying that Sweden will not be a country consisting of people from different parts of the world, but I can state that I do not see the same positive basic value in differences as the minister does. I have also not perceived that the minister has been able to clarify what this would consist of. Differences linked to religion, as he exemplifies with, have probably not led to that much positive [impact] around the world.

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

Statsrådet Johan Forssell (M)

Madam Speaker! I honestly believe that most voters following this debate think it is quite confusing. We have a long series of serious problems in Sweden – exclusion, insecurity, lack of freedom, and very many girls and women living under conditions they should not live under in Sweden – and so we stand here and discuss different philosophical concepts. But just as Tobias Andersson says, the interpellator obviously has the right to ask the questions he or she wants.

I have been clear several times about how I define this, and there are different definitions. Let me however repeat the example that this year we celebrate 250 years of Jewish life and culture in Sweden. The decision to support this, Sverigedemokraterna have also been involved in making, which is good. This is a good example that there are things that are not problematic.

Let me conclude by saying that when there is this type of lack of freedom and exclusion, and when we see that important Swedish values are being challenged and that there is no strong Swedish majority culture, we must be crystal clear that we do not accept this. In that case, it is not the confession of lips that counts, but taking concrete reforms to change this, and the government has essentially worked day and night to tackle these problems.

But we must also remember that most of the 2 million people in today's Sweden who were born in another country are honest and hardworking and do not commit crimes, and they become at least as outraged as Tobias Andersson and I when crimes are committed and feel that it is wrong. Let us therefore find a reasonable balance where we see this but also the problems that exist and that we shall be relentless in our work to make Sweden richer, freer and better.

I thank Tobias Andersson and Nima Gholam Ali Pour for the debate.

The interpellation debate was hereby concluded.

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