Response to interpellation 2024/25:666 on the ban on conversion attempts

Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)

Madam Speaker! Daniel Vencu Velasquez Castro has asked me a number of questions regarding conversion attempts, including whether the government intends to appoint an inquiry during this parliamentary term with directives to prohibit conversion attempts and whether the Riksdag can expect the government to present such a bill before the 2026 general election.

Let me first underline that no one should be subjected to threats, hate, violence, harassment or discrimination because of their sexual orientation, their gender identity or their gender expression. Everyone should feel safe to be who they are and love whom they want. Unfortunately, we know that this is not a reality today and that people are forced to change, hide or refrain from living in accordance with their sexual orientation or gender identity. It is completely unacceptable.

Against that background, the government is working on a broad front to ensure that LGBTIQ people receive the support and protection they need. An important part of that is to ensure that the criminal legislation is purposeful and comprehensive.

Already today, many actions aimed at making someone change their sexual orientation or gender identity can be illegal, for example in the form of harassment, unlawful coercion or assault. However, there are certain forms of conversion attempts that are not criminal according to today's legislation.

Such attempts at conversion can fall under what is considered so-called psychological violence. During the mandate period at the Ministry of Justice, we have worked out a draft for a referral to the Council on Legislation with a proposal for a specific penal provision for psychological violence. The proposal was referred as recently as last week. According to the proposal, it shall be punishable to repeatedly subject another person to violations in the form of insults, improper threats, improper coercion, or improper surveillance, if the violations collectively have been intended to seriously harm the person's self-esteem.

In the draft, it is stated that anyone who, through threats or in other ways through coercion, attempts to induce someone to change their sexual orientation can be convicted of psychological violence. The proposal means that many forms of conversion attempts that today risk falling outside the punishable area would become criminalized.

I look forward to receiving the views of the referral bodies on this part of the proposal and to continuing the important work for everyone's right to live openly in freedom and security.

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

Daniel Vencu Velasquez Castro (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Gunnar Strömmer, for the answer to my interpellation! I believe this is the third debate we have had on this issue during the parliamentary term, and that is because it has taken a very long time for the government to respond.

I think it is a good answer from the Minister on the question. I want to thank you for the fact that at least the Moderates and the Liberals fundamentally have a commitment that we Social Democrats share when it comes to redress for hbtqi persons who have been subjected to conversion attempts in our country.

Let us take a small international perspective. In Sweden, we are quite late to the ball, and that was exactly why the Social Democratic government had these additional directives for the inquiry into personal integrity. We wanted to try to find more ways to prohibit conversion attempts in Sweden. Malta, Spain, Germany, Belgium, Greece, Portugal and Cyprus are just some of the EU countries that have gone further than Sweden. Malta has had legislation against conversion attempts since 2016.

What distinguishes these legislations from what the Minister for Justice is presenting anyway, and which are welcome news when it comes to conversion attempts also being included as an example of psychological violence, is that one explicitly states conversion attempts as forbidden and illegal.

That is exactly what legislation aims for. It is about redress, and it is also about recognition of people who are being subjected to it. In the previous debate, I exemplified this with honor-related violence. We in politics have said that the motive behind this is also criminal, and it is this that I hope we can focus a little on in this debate as well.

It is this that I seek and that many want to see when it concerns people who try to convert hbtqi-persons: The motive behind it should be criminalized, as it is in the countries I just mentioned. I believe it is important that Sweden takes a stand on the issue.

Just recently, a call went around to criminalize this at the EU level, and 2 million names were collected. Among others, Gabriel Attal, former Prime Minister of France, has urged the EU's countries and governments to stand behind this.

I would like to ask the Minister for Justice if this is something that the Swedish government has considered and how the issue is viewed at the EU level. It is, after all, something that Gunnar Strömmer is responsible for, not least in the Council.

In the presented referral to the Council on Legislation, the definition of conversion attempts from MUCF is used, which I welcome and think is good. MUCF advocates for a ban on conversion attempts in the report, and it is a desire that also emerges when interviewing, above all, young hbtqi persons. Why then can the government not submit a proposal, or at least present an investigation, on banning just conversion attempts?

I believe we share the view that these are important issues. I believe we share the view that we think the phenomenon should be illegal in Sweden. But that is not quite what is being presented. Even if the whole thing becomes more extensive with the Government Offices referral that has just been presented, it is not a ban on conversion attempts. That is a question I would like to have an answer to.

Madam Speaker! I begin with this question and will return to it later. Why is the government not proceeding with this?

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

Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)

Madam Speaker! Thank you for the opportunity to discuss these important issues here today!

The Chairman and I share the view that even if some of the most tangible or crude conversion attempts are certainly already criminalized today and can be met by a long series of different legal provisions, there are still very many, at least potentially, conversion attempts that are not met by today's criminalization. And this is something we do not want to accept.

Then my question is: How should it be solved in an efficient way? I believe, just by taking the route via the EU initiative, that the discussion, certainly in the Council of Ministers, regarding the issue will manifest in that the focus is set on the problem being extensive and that one must find different ways to tackle it. But as when it concerns criminal law in general, different countries will choose different paths, somewhat depending on how their criminal law systems look.

What made me think it was very attractive to expand the protection against conversion attempts through the provision on psychological violence was that I believe that in that way – we will have to see what the referral bodies say – we can find a regulation that becomes effective, that has precision, and that in practice addresses what we can reach with criminal law.

Let me draw a parallel to the broader concept of psychological violence and the lessons from that investigation, which was commissioned during the previous parliamentary term. It submitted a proposal on psychological violence that was subsequently criticized by the referral bodies, particularly regarding the application of the law. What was proposed was too unpredictable. It was too vague. It was too broad strokes. It was not known how, in practice, one was to succeed in the task of protecting vulnerable persons against this violence.

I believe this is an experience that can also be transferred to this issue. It is clear that with broader brushstrokes one could say that we prohibit conversion attempts, but somewhere it still must become a legal provision that can be used in practice and in practice uphold the protection we are seeking. I believe that we can achieve that in this way.

In all practical respects, conversion attempts will be criminalized in Sweden. Unlike some other provisions that also address this problem, we also mention it explicitly and describe the problem explicitly. As stated, we also link to accepted definitions of what kind of problem it is and show how the provision shall address that problem.

For my part, I am in any case convinced: If we manage to achieve this, we will likely achieve perhaps the most effective regulation in Europe against this issue. I also want to emphasize that we, furthermore, since it is so clearly stated in the preparatory works what it is about, say straight out that conversion attempts in all practical and relevant senses will be criminalized in Sweden through this.

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

Daniel Vencu Velasquez Castro (S)

Madam Speaker! I share the Minister for Justice's view that the referral to the Council on Legislation will expand the definition, or rather specify what attempted conversion is and also the possibility of obtaining redress. But I also believe that symbols are important in politics, and we are politicians. We are legislators but also politicians who have opinions, and for us, symbols and semantics are important. Messages are important.

Had the government explicitly said that they were now banning conversion attempts, it would have meant a great deal for LGBTQI people, precisely because this is an issue they have championed for many years. Sweden would then no longer stand aside from that work but be involved at the EU level.

I can accept the criticism that our government did not do enough during eight years. However, we added to the directive for the inquiry on personal integrity precisely that finding ways to ban conversion attempts in Sweden. That the inquiry then did not proceed with this has delayed that work, but for many years Sweden stood aside from the work with restitution for hbtqi persons. It would have been welcome if the government could have clarified this and said that one is now moving forward with a ban on conversion attempts.

The problem, Madam Speaker, is that one does not proceed with a ban on conversion attempts in the legislation without including it as a way to commit psychological violence. There we still have a difference, I think. Even if the Minister for Justice feels that this legislation will be more accurate, I believe that an introduction of a ban on conversion attempts would be to seriously tackle the problem and also send an important signal: In Sweden, this is not permitted. In Sweden, we will not allow people to attempt to perform conversion therapies against young hbtqi persons. It is unacceptable.

There has been a bit of a debate flared up here – not quite like with the gender identity law, but we have seen such tendencies. It is regrettable. The difference is perhaps that there is a much broader group consensus when it comes to supporting a ban on conversion attempts, but it still makes me a little worried.

In the referral to the Council on Legislation, it is stated that the referral is partially based on an agreement between the Sweden Democrats and the government. I would like to know if this issue has been a problem for the government in the cooperation with the Sweden Democrats, who are very clear that they will not accept any advancements when it comes to LGBTQI issues. Sweden Democrat politicians have also said that they oppose, for example, a ban on conversion attempts. It would be interesting, not only for me who is in opposition and does not get to take part in the government's negotiations but also for the LGBTQI persons who are watching this debate and who have followed the issue for several years, to hear if that is where the shoe pinches. Is that why the Moderates cannot move forward with a clear proposal to ban conversion attempts in Sweden?

I also want to ask a question about something we have seen in the legislation in Germany and Malta and which it would be interesting if the Minister for Justice could elaborate on, Madam Speaker. In Germany and Malta, the legislation has been further developed so that it shall be illegal to market conversion therapy. Congregations are also not allowed to offer any type of camp where they are to teach children and young people to no longer have these homosexual demons in their heads.

I would like to have an answer to this. It is also something that could be added to legislation prohibiting conversion attempts, and it is not in the Government Offices' referral. I would like to know if this is something that the Minister for Justice would be interested in looking into further. It will not be a complete law regarding a ban on conversion attempts, even though I share the view that this will provide an expanded opportunity for hbtqi persons to obtain redress if they have been subjected to it.

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

Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)

Madam Speaker! To begin with the referral to the Council on Legislation itself, all four parties in the government base stand behind it – including the part of the criminalization that targets conversion attempts, defined according to the established guidelines of our authorities. I think that is a great strength.

The Moderates experience no obstacles in the matter. I, who have nevertheless been responsible for the matter, have on the other hand been preoccupied by a very practical question: How can we de facto achieve this in terms of legislative technique, especially since the investigation commissioned by the previous Social Democratic government, but which submitted its proposals during this parliamentary term, concluded that there was no need to further criminalize conversion attempts?

The question that has occupied my time and the department's time here is, therefore, not primarily how we can overcome various complex political hurdles, but rather how we can find a practical and effective way to address this problem through legislation, preferably during this parliamentary term. In that case, the work on psychological violence became such a practical and effective way to move forward.

I dare to assert, again without anticipating what will emerge in the referral process, that if this is implemented, Sweden will no longer be lagging behind but will be in the front line for a practical and effective protection against conversion attempts, regardless of whether there are others who perhaps rhetorically have expressed themselves more powerfully in the legislation.

The secret to whether one really wants to address the problem is to ensure that this achieves a full and practical impact in our criminal justice system. I believe this is a goal-rational way to achieve that.

I also want to emphasize that we describe it as a criminalization of conversion attempts, because that is what it is in practice. Then, one still has to make some kind of delimitation legislatively or criminally if we are to live up to other requirements such as the principle of legality, that it must be foreseeable, that it must be possible to apply in practice, and so on.

If one is, as I truly experience the interpellor to be, deeply engaged in these issues, I believe that one should truly welcome and stand behind this measure. It will place us on the front line in Europe, and we will offer a protection that potentially can truly be practical and effective in a different way than what is the case today.

So, that is where we stand. I hope that after the referral process, we will be able to go to the Council on Legislation promptly and then table the proposal before the Riksdag as soon as possible.

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

Daniel Vencu Velasquez Castro (S)

Madam Speaker! I assume that the Minister for Justice wants everyone to always stand behind his proposals and think that they are excellent.

I still think that the draft for the Council of Legislation referral we have seen is good. It is much more comprehensive than it is today, and I welcome that. I know that many LGBTQI people also do.

When it comes to the responses from the referral bodies, I would also like the hbtqi civil society to be included, as they have both driven the issue and have members who have been victims. They also have the knowledge of how widespread this is in Sweden and know exactly what type of legislation would have been effective for their members but above all for all of us who are hbtqi persons and for those who have been victims.

I want to continue by asking a question about the marketing of conversion therapy – or conversion attempts. Those who offer conversion therapy do not call it conversion attempts, but does the Minister for Justice have anything to say about whether it should be illegal to offer young people some form of therapy to remove homosexuality or to change gender identity?

Young people who are in a vulnerable situation or position and who lack consequential thinking, who are in a development process and reflecting on themselves, can be susceptible to someone, for example in a religious context, saying: I can see to it that you feel better, and we can have a conversation to get rid of the demons that are stuck in the mind or take over the soul.

I do not think it is acceptable, and we do not think it should be legal in Sweden. I would like to get an answer from the Minister for Justice regarding this. Otherwise, I would like to thank you for the debate and for the Minister's commitment to the issue.

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

Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)

Madam Speaker! The proposed regulation aims to significantly expand the scope to include a long series of actions which include, among others, psychological harassment but which today do not reach the level of unlawful threats or that type of crime.

Generally speaking, an entry point in the bill on psychological coercion is that it must involve some kind of threat or coercion or, in any case, violations that collectively have been intended, as it is called, to seriously damage the person's self-esteem. One must still reach some kind of level if we are to obtain legislation that is predictable and lives up to some kind of basic legality requirement.

There is no doubt that the intention is still to significantly expand the criminal scope in that way, but it must still occur in a legally secure and predictable manner. Otherwise, there is a great risk that it will amount to nothing in practice if the brushstrokes become too broad and the courts have to apply legislation that is too vague and too loose at the edges.

Well! What we are now presenting, I dare say, will become leading in Europe, if one looks at it in a practical and effective way when it comes to the protection of persons who are subjected to that type of abuse.

Then there was the question of the referral process. I do not have every single instance included on the referral list in my head, but I dare say that civil society is included. Should it happen to be the case that some representative from civil society or from an organization that wants to say something is not included on the sent list, it is naturally the case, in this matter as in all other matters, that one is still welcome to respond to the referral. I hope that many parts of civil society and other actors in society want to comment on the bill.

The interpellations debate was hereby concluded.

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