Response to interpellation 2024/25:641 on neutrality in the workplace
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
1 2 3 L argues that the Discrimination Act is a fundamental pillar of democracy and that everyone should be treated equally regardless of religion 1 2 3. 1 2 3 L believes that employers can prohibit religious symbols if it is objectively justified by security requirements 1 2 3. 4 L argues that it is correct according to the order that the Discrimination Ombudsman pursues cases against employers to protect the rule of law and democracy 4. 4 L believes that the government takes an active leadership against honor-related violence 4. 5 6 SD argues that the unclear gray area creates uncertainty for employers 5 6. 5 6 SD believes that employers should have the right to set rules to protect neutrality and equality 5 6 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.
Statsrådet Nina Larsson (L)
Madam Speaker! Sara Gille has asked me if I intend to take any measures to clarify the employer's right to maintain dress codes and safety rules in workplaces where it is deemed necessary. Furthermore, she has asked me how I view the balance between the individual's right to wear religious symbols and the employer's responsibility to create a clear, functional, and professional work environment.
Sara Gille has also asked whether I consider that today's application of the Discrimination Act provides a reasonable protection for employers against legal proceedings when they act based on order, security, or service aspects.
It follows from the Discrimination Act (2008:567) that discrimination on the grounds of, among other things, religion or other belief is prohibited in the working life. An assessment of whether discrimination has occurred needs to be made in each individual case based on the criteria set forth in the Discrimination Act.
The Swedish Discrimination Act is based on EU law. The Court of Justice of the European Union has on several occasions examined whether employers' so-called neutrality policies are compatible with Union law. According to the Court of Justice of the European Union, an employer may, under certain conditions, require that employees do not wear clothes or other symbols that express political, philosophical, or religious conviction.
An employer can therefore, in certain situations, prohibit religious symbols. The Equality Ombudsman has supervision over the Discrimination Act and can investigate and pursue individuals' cases to court. It is ultimately the court that assesses whether a neutrality policy is compatible with the prohibition of discrimination or not.
Sara Gille (SD)
Madam Speaker! Thank you to the Minister for the answer! However, I must admit that I am not entirely satisfied with it, as it leaves the questions about the real problems unanswered.
The Minister refers to the Discrimination Act, to EU law, and to the courts. But it is precisely this unclear gray area that creates uncertainty for the employers.
Amnesty and Human Rights Watch report on assault, harassment, and prison sentences for women who resist the veil obligation. The Gender Equality Authority estimates that around 70,000 young people in Sweden today live under honor-related oppression, and the number of unreported cases is large. This is a societal challenge that affects not only private life but also school and work life.
Madam Speaker! This is about so much more than dress codes. It is about Islamization, about concessions, and about a naivety that has characterized Swedish politics for far too long.
The veil is not just a garment. It signals an ideology where the woman is to cover herself so as not to arouse men's lust, where her body is seen as something to be hidden and controlled, and where her freedom is restricted in order to uphold the family's honor.
We cannot ignore that these values are deeply rooted in fundamentalist directions within Islam. Sweden has become a country where religious demands are prioritized over women's freedom. We are simply bowing down to an aggressive Islamist agenda and calling it respect.
Mr. Speaker, Madam President, respect should not go in the direction of oppression. Respect should go in the direction where girls are allowed to be free. It is not religious freedom when young girls are forced to cover themselves to avoid shame. It is not tolerance when girls' lives are controlled by religious patriarchs. It is not integration when Islamist norms are given free rein in Swedish schools and in Swedish workplaces.
At the same time as women risk their lives for their freedom in, for example, Iran and Afghanistan, we in Sweden have a political and media elite that would rather relativize the significance of the veil than defend women's freedom. It is naive, and it is dangerous.
How did it happen that women risk their lives by taking off their veil while we in Sweden defend the right to wear it in the name of the state? When Iran fights against the mandatory veil, Sweden cannot simultaneously normalize the veil in public workplaces. Yet, the previous government has time and again put Islamist symbol politics ahead of Swedish equality. The veil's place in schools, at workplaces, and in public environments has been defended.
Madam President! Employers should not have to compromise their operations. We see a development where employers hesitate to introduce reasonable rules for fear of legal proceedings. When employers are forced to defend their right to create a safe working environment in court, it is something that is fundamentally wrong in the system.
The workplace shall be a place where people from different backgrounds meet on equal terms, and the workplace shall not become an arena for religious markings.
I would like to conclude by simply saying to the Minister that my question remains. When will the government stand on the employers' side and say that enough is enough? We must stand up for women's freedom, for the employers' right to set rules, and for a Sweden that safeguards neutrality and equality.
Statsrådet Nina Larsson (L)
Madam Speaker! Thank you very much to Sara Gille for the question and for her commitment to opposing honor-related violence and oppression in every way!
This is truly a subject in which I share the commitment and an issue that we from the Liberals' side have driven for many, many years. A number of the government's various interventions, decisions, and measures will prove to be, and already are, effective in countering honor-related violence and oppression. It is without doubt this government's absolute highest priority.
But the interpellation is about the anti-discrimination legislation and what the balance looks like in connection with those parts. The Swedish Discrimination Act is based on EU law, as I mentioned. There is an EU directive on equal treatment in the workplace. The directive is an important part of the internal market with equal conditions and something that companies and organizations within the EU need to comply with. This is fundamentally a great strength, which is incredibly important for Swedish and European competitiveness.
The Court of Justice of the European Union has examined whether employers' so-called neutrality policies are compatible with Union law. From the Court's case law, it appears that a neutrality policy that prohibits all visible political, philosophical, or religious symbols can constitute discrimination.
But it can also be permitted. For that to be the case, it must be objectively justified and have a legitimate aim. The means to achieve the aim must also be appropriate and necessary. The policy must also respond to a real need.
It means that, for example, freedom of religion may need to take a backseat if it concerns security requirements or other types of requirements that employers have. But an assessment must be made in each individual case based on the criteria that the Discrimination Act sets out. That we have a well-functioning labor market with frameworks in the form of discrimination legislation and occupational health and safety legislation that actors, companies, authorities, and organizations need to comply with, and where the conditions are managed by the parties in the labor market, means that we have a situation that works very well.
That the Equality Ombudsman handles this type of case is good for both reasons. It is incredibly important to bring clarity as to when it is okay to make exceptions to the anti-discrimination legislation and when it is not. That is how a rule-based world order and a rule of law function: We enact laws which are then tested in court.
I believe that, fundamentally, is something incredibly positive. It is a democratic foundation in Sweden and something that truly contributes to our democracy's resilience.
Sara Gille (SD)
Madam Speaker! We must start speaking plainly: Freedom of religion does not mean that Islam should be given a preferential treatment straight into Swedish workplaces. Freedom of religion does not mean that we should turn a blind eye to the consequences that certain religious expressions have in our society.
Neutrality at work is about respect for everyone and not about suppressing religion. The Minister refers to the law, but we know that in practice, employers do not dare to use their rights. They risk reports, scrutiny, and sometimes even campaigns in the media.
The ECJ ruled in the well-known Achbitam case that employers can introduce a neutrality policy. Despite the ECJ's clarity, DO's own reports show that clothing and symbol issues account for a large proportion of their cases. We also see this in practice, as in the case of MTR and Securitas.
The veil is in many cases an expression of social control and power. It is about women's freedom and equality and not just about individual cases. It is a systemic error that affects women's freedom and weakens our common values. Every time we relativize this fact, we undermine the women who are forced to wear the veil against their will.
The Gender Equality Authority, the National Board of Health and Welfare, and several others have warned that the culture of honor in Sweden is spreading. Approximately 10 percent of young people in certain vulnerable areas live under honor norms. It is a societal problem with such a large scale that it can no longer be seen as marginal.
In France and Belgium, laws have been introduced that prohibit religious symbols in schools and public spaces. In Switzerland, there has even been a referendum on this. These countries have acted to safeguard the neutrality of the public sphere and strengthen women's freedom, and they have done so in broad political agreement.
A report from the Agency for Youth and Civil Society Issues points out that girls in honor contexts run an increased risk of mental ill-health, poorer school results, and isolation. There are women who wear the veil out of conviction, but also those who wear it under pressure, coercion, and fear. This must not be forgotten. Employers cannot take on the role of investigating which motives lie behind. It is about strengthening the citizens' trust and upholding equal treatment before the state.
The UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women has also noted that religious and cultural norms are often used to justify the subordination of women and has urged countries to act to protect women's rights in all environments, including in the workplace.
According to a Eurobarometer survey, Sweden is one of the most secular countries in the EU, and the popular support for keeping religious expressions out of public functions is strong. This popular will should also be reflected in our workplaces.
Madam Speaker! I would therefore like to ask the Minister: Should employers be able to say no to symbols that risk undermining equality and safety?
Statsrådet Nina Larsson (L)
Madam Speaker! Sara Gille raises the issues surrounding honor-related violence and oppression with genuine commitment. I agree, and it is the government's absolute priority to counter honor-related violence and oppression. Here, the government has shown decisiveness in a number of different areas, and we will continue to do so.
This question concerns the anti-discrimination legislation, workplaces and neutrality, and what possibilities employers have to establish, for example, neutrality policies or, for security reasons, determine which choice of clothing must prevail. Here, a collective assessment needs to be made, which is made possible in the current situation. The anti-discrimination legislation and the EU law that we apply allow employers to make exceptions, for example for reasons of neutrality but also for reasons of security. After that, this needs to be tested in court.
It is important that the Equality Ombudsman can continue to pursue those types of cases so that we can obtain increased clarity and precision regarding what trade-offs can be made, because it is precisely in the collective assessments and trade-offs that this needs to continue to exist.
The Discrimination Act is clear: we shall not discriminate based on religion or gender, and therefore it is incredibly important to continue having strong anti-discrimination legislation. It is a fundamental pillar of our democracy that we have a sense of justice regarding being treated in the same way, regardless of background, religion, or gender. This needs to be strong, because if we undermine it, we also weaken Sweden's resilience and one of our absolute strengths, namely a society that holds together.
I believe that we need to do much more to counter honor-related violence and oppression; that is the first thing I sign my name to. This government has taken a number of different measures. Most recently, we announced the criminalization of innocence checks, certificates, and interventions, just a few in the series of all the measures that the government has prioritized and that my party Liberalerna has pushed for for many, many years. I remember when this political proposal was brought up sometime in the late 90s in our youth organization, so these are issues that we have pushed for for many years and that we can now really push through in a good way. We shall continue with that.
The anti-discrimination legislation, which is about us treating everyone equally, is completely fundamental to our democracy. It is nothing that we can compromise on. The courts need to have the competence and ability to make comprehensive assessments, and therefore the Equality Ombudsman also needs to pursue more cases.
Sara Gille (SD)
Madam Speaker! We know that the government, with the support of the Sweden Democrats, has done much in the fight against honor-related violence and oppression. But there is still very much more to be done. When even the Equality Ombudsman drives processes against employers who try to maintain dress codes and neutrality, it sends out the wrong signals. We risk building parallel norm systems where Swedish values simply have to take a back seat.
Madam Speaker! This is not just about law, but also about values and leadership. We must not leave these issues solely to courts and authorities. Clear political signals are required that strengthen employers' opportunities to keep workplaces free from conflicts and symbolic battles. The Government can actually do something in this matter.
I would like to conclude with a clear appeal to the government: Show where you stand and that you stand on the side of the employers! Give clear signals that employers have the right to say that in this workplace we respect Swedish values and common rules.
So we build a strong society. It simply requires clear messages that Swedish work culture shall not be subjected to religious requirements and norm systems derived from authoritarian traditions.
Statsrådet Nina Larsson (L)
Madam Speaker! That the Equality Ombudsman conducts cases against employers is entirely in accordance with the rules. They have oversight of the anti-discrimination legislation and shall pursue these cases. In some cases, the employer is found correct, and in other cases, the respondent is found correct. It is the collective assessment that needs to be made. That is how the rule of law functions, and that is how we protect Swedish democracy in the long term. It is incredibly important.
Speaking of leadership, as Sara Gille pointed out, I am the first to sign on to the fact that the government is taking an active leadership role against honor-related violence and oppression. We have taken a number of measures and will continue to do so to counter honor-related violence and oppression. At the same time, we stand up for the independence of the rule of law. We stand up for that all people shall be treated equally.
Employers have the opportunity to exclude, for example, religious symbols in cases where it is justified, but this needs to be done on a case-by-case basis according to a collective assessment. That is how we safeguard the democratic right to be treated equally regardless of background, gender, or religion.
I can state that there are a number of government agencies that themselves decide which different security requirements apply and whether one, for example, should have uniform clothing in uniformed professions. I have full confidence that they are also capable of handling that. That is how we show leadership – by having trust in our agencies and their ability to solve the task.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.