Response to interpellation 2024/25:550 on climate activists' threats of actions against Swedish infrastructure
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
The debate concerns climate activists' threats against Swedish infrastructure, particularly during the Easter holidays. M argues that actions that disrupt infrastructure are punishable and can threaten emergency services 1. M emphasizes that the right to demonstrate is central but that serious disruptions must be countered 1 2 3. M states that the police are well-prepared and that a penalty investigation is underway 4 2. SD argues that current legislation does not deter repeat offenders and advocates for security penalties for ideologically motivated actions 5 6. SD emphasizes that actions cause large societal costs and risk lives 7. SD demands sharper legislation to stop activities that disturb public order 7.
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)
Mr. Speaker! Pontus Andersson Garpvall has asked me whether I and the government, in consultation with our law enforcement agencies, have taken any measures to mitigate the potential effects of actions against Swedish infrastructure during the Easter holidays or if we intend to do so.
Blocking a road or otherwise disrupting infrastructure risks not only causing delays and frustration but can also interfere with emergency responses and urgent transports. Such actions are also punishable. Sabotage, sabotage against emergency services, disobedience to law enforcement, and self-help are some of the criminal classifications that may be applicable.
It is the police who are responsible for measures against crime and public order disturbances in connection with demonstrations of various kinds, and according to the authority, they are well-equipped to mitigate any effects of actions against infrastructure even during the Easter holidays. If public order is disturbed, the police can intervene by, for example, removing a person from a roadway. The police can also dissolve a public assembly that causes a serious disruption of traffic. If crimes are committed, the police are of course obliged to intervene.
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, actions that disrupt infrastructure can have extremely socially harmful and dangerous consequences. The Government therefore views this issue with the utmost seriousness and follows the developments closely.
Pontus Andersson Garpvall (SD)
Mr. Speaker! Spring is here, and with spring, climate activists are once again moving out from their collectives to disturb working people on their way to their jobs, ambulances on their way to the emergency room, and police in full swing in the fight against crime. We have seen time and again how people who do not seem to have anything better to do spend their time destroying things for other people. Car traffic is blocked, meetings are forced to be canceled, and flight departures are delayed or stopped – all at a great cost to the Swedish state and individual citizens.
Earlier this year, activist groups threatened to carry out a number of actions against Swedish infrastructure during the Easter weekend. That they choose just this weekend is likely due to the fact that many Swedes choose to travel away during that week, partly to meet loved ones and partly for vacation.
Several of the most active individuals within Swedish climate activism have been known to the police for some time. These same individuals, when they have been convicted for various types of actions, have made clear that prison sentences or fines will not stop them from future actions against, for example, Swedish infrastructure. It is clear that these repeat offenders are not deterred from committing new crimes with the legislation we have today.
Within the Tidö Agreement, the Sweden Democrats and the government agree to develop a so-called detention sentence – what is now called a security sentence. This is intended, in short, to be an indefinite sentence for persons with a high risk of committing new crimes. My view is that climate activists or other repeat offenders who show indifference toward the law and are ready to commit new crimes as soon as they have received their sentence should be covered by a future security sentence. Regardless of how the security sentence is designed, we currently do not have any such legislation available. Our law enforcement agencies need a plan to prevent and quickly handle the Easter's alleged attacks against Swedish infrastructure.
In view of this, I pose the following question to Minister of Justice Gunnar Strömmer: What types of preparations can the police use today to be well-prepared for this type of threat against Swedish infrastructure and for general disorder in the public space?
Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)
Mr. Speaker! I thank you for the opportunity to discuss these important issues.
I want to say something first about the penalties. It naturally depends on which crime it is about. If one, for example, commits very serious crimes that disturb, hinder, or destroy blue-light activities, the range of penalties is very extensive; such crimes can already today lead to life imprisonment. Across the entire scale of actions and sanctions, there is therefore already today the possibility of very severe consequences.
It is also about prevention. The crimes that never occur are the best crimes, and the disturbances that do not occur are the best disturbances. The police always take preparatory measures to be able to meet public order disturbances of various kinds that there is reason to fear. Without going into more detail on exactly which measures the police have taken, I can say that after a question from the department to the police, which was posed by reason of the member's question, I have received the information that the police are well prepared to handle this type of action if they were to occur during the Easter holidays or in the Easter traffic.
Pontus Andersson Garpvall (SD)
Mr. Speaker! I thank the Minister for the answer and for the conversations he has had with law enforcement authorities.
Security sentences are a central part of the Tidö Agreement regarding criminal law issues and will likely play an important role in the design of the increased penalties within the Swedish justice system. In Sweden, we have seen countless examples of repeat offenders who, as soon as they are released, simply cannot refrain from committing new crimes, often on the same theme as before. Two examples of people who are such are the Dawn Pyromaniac and the Nytorg Man, to take a more current case. It is a security risk to have these types of people free in Swedish society, and therefore we need this type of security sentence.
The difference between these two examples and climate activists, which this debate is about, is that the latter are ideologically motivated to commit crimes. They do not do it primarily out of self-interest but see themselves as part of something larger. As an almost religious movement, they have a theory about the world's downfall, and to avoid this, they choose to eat and live in a certain way. They even evangelize to warn other people of the impending doom. Some surely see Greta Thunberg as a prophet.
The question I am reflecting on is whether it would be reasonable in the future to be able to use security sentences even for persons who are repeatedly convicted for various ideologically motivated actions against, for example, Swedish infrastructure. Today's legislation is in no way deterrent, as the sentences are far too short for those who are sentenced to imprisonment. The day-fines often become low if the activists lack employment, and any fines can easily be paid with the help of crowdfunding or other forms of collections. It is today almost risk-free to commit this type of crime if one is ideologically motivated, as long as one does not commit the most serious forms of crime, as the minister mentioned earlier.
If persons who repeatedly commit actions against Swedish infrastructure had instead risked receiving an indeterminate sentence for their actions, they would likely have been more deterred. My firm opinion is that we should not take these types of actions lightly. They are often dangerous, and they are also costly for Sweden, Swedish companies, and individual citizens.
I understand that the Minister may not want to comment on current legislative processes regarding the security penalty, but does the Minister see any other possible changes to the legislation to stop these types of actions?
Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)
Mr. Speaker! It is of course entirely correct that we must take these types of actions, which are criminal, seriously. I would however like to emphasize that the right to opinions – even those we do not like – is constitutionally protected. It is very important to emphasize the significance of the fact that the police have an extensive obligation to ensure that even such demonstrations can take place.
However, it is not about protecting demonstrations that have a serious negative impact on other people's freedom of movement and ability to navigate in traffic. This could, for example, involve ambulance personnel or personnel in law enforcement activities. The surrounding society must, of course, view actions that have those types of effects as extremely serious, and so does the police.
I do not rule out that there may be reason to review the penalties that may become relevant in these cases in the criminal law area. A sentencing study is underway which is to come with proposals during the spring. We have already changed the rules and lowered the threshold for mandatory detention so that one can detain in more cases when it concerns crimes that fall in the lower part of the sentencing scales, which is often the case in these cases.
Regarding the upcoming security sentence, I am doubtful that we should place our hopes on that specific legislation. It targets very serious crime; one must be quite high in terms of sentencing value for that type of penalty to become relevant. Furthermore, it must involve repeated crime and a risk of further recidivism in serious crime. It does not exclude that this legislation could affect someone who, for example, on repeated occasions has committed particularly serious blue-light sabotage, i.e., if it concerns crime that is so serious that one ends up high on the sentencing scale and which additionally occurs on repeated occasions. I believe, however, that we should primarily place our hopes on the rest of the criminal law.
The police take this most seriously under all circumstances and, through various preventive measures, strive to ensure that this type of socially harmful action does not occur from the outset.
Pontus Andersson Garpvall (SD)
Mr. Speaker! I thank the Minister again for the answer.
I do not really feel that I need to extend the discussion. Like the Minister, I am confident that the police and our law enforcement agencies are well-equipped to meet the threats from various activist groups. My hope is that people all around Sweden do not have to be affected by these groups' various actions, whether during the Easter holidays or at any other time during the year.
But even if the police are well-equipped to handle this type of incident, it is my firm opinion that we need sharper legislation in this area. We need legislation that is so effective that people will simply refrain from this type of disruptive activity. Delays entail great societal costs, and the cost of a life that cannot be saved because an ambulance does not arrive in time cannot be measured in crowns and öre.
I still feel secure with the police's work and am satisfied that the Minister for Justice also takes the issue seriously.
Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)
Mr. Speaker! I thank Pontus Andersson Garpvall once again for the opportunity to highlight these important issues today.
As I said initially, the right to demonstrate is central in a democracy, and any restrictions on it must be understood to be based on requirements such as legality, necessity, and proportionality. But that said, it does not imply a right to carry out actions that seriously disrupt infrastructure with extremely socially dangerous and harmful consequences. It also means that the penalties for this type of activity must reflect the severity of the crime, and there is more to be done here. It also means, of course, that our law enforcement agencies, especially the police, take this crime very seriously and take preventive measures to, if possible, avoid the type of actions that disrupt just the infrastructure in a socially dangerous way taking place at all. This also applies to the Easter holidays.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.