Response to interpellation 2025/26:105 on the ban on full-face veils in public environments
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
1 L wants women and men to have the same power to shape their lives and that honor-related violence conflicts with society's values 1. L argues that full-face veils are a terrible aberration 2. L argues that the government criminalizes psychological violence including coercion regarding veils 3, has tightened the legislation on child abduction and criminalized virginity checks 3. L sees opportunities in neutrality policies in workplaces 4. 5 SD considers full-face veils to be a tool for control, segregation, and female subordination 5. SD argues that veil coercion is a part of honor-related violence 5. 6 SD argues that Sweden must ban the full-face veil 6. 7 SD argues that women do not wear veils of their own free will 7. 8 SD considers the full-face veil to be a way to oppress women 8. 9 SD argues that burqa and niqab in public environments are a security risk 9.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Jämställdhetsministern Nina Larsson (L)
Madam Speaker! Sara Gille has asked me how I view Portugal's decision to ban full-face veils in public spaces, whether I believe Sweden should follow Portugal and other European countries by investigating and introducing a corresponding ban to strengthen equality and protect the secular society, and whether I and the government intend to initiate a swift investigation into a national ban, taking into account European practice and current law, including previous rulings from the European Court of Human Rights.
I would like to thank the member for the question and for the commitment to equality and for girls' and women's right to decide over their own lives. As Minister for Equality, I want to clearly clarify that the goal of equality policy is that women and men shall have the same power to shape society and their own lives. This applies to all girls and women in Sweden, regardless of cultural or religious background. The work is based on what is stipulated in the Swedish constitution, the anti-discrimination legislation, the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, as well as international conventions such as for example the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (Cedaw) and the Council of Europe's Convention on Preventing and Combating Violence against Women and Domestic Violence (Istanbul Convention).
Honor-related violence and oppression conflict with society's fundamental values and is a serious social problem. It is also a very serious violation of people's fundamental freedoms and rights. The patriarchal ideas in an honor context can, among other things, manifest in the form of control ranging from restrictions in everyday life regarding clothing, freedom of movement, social interactions, and choice of partner, to restrictions in choice of education and future opportunities.
There shall be zero tolerance for honor-related violence and oppression. The Government has therefore introduced a new equality policy sub-goal that honor-related violence and oppression shall cease. An action plan for 2026–2028 will be developed and is currently being prepared within the Government Offices.
In the budget bill for 2026 (prop. 2025/26:1), the government proposes that the work against honor-related violence and oppression be strengthened, among other things by scaling up the investments in regional resource centers so that all children, young people, and adults who are or risk being subjected to honor-related violence and oppression shall receive specialized and equal support throughout the country. The government also proposes that 100 million kronor in permanent funds be allocated to municipalities and regions, with a focus, among other things, on strengthening their work against honor-related violence and oppression.
The Government intends to proceed with the proposal from the draft for a referral to the Council on Legislation regarding a specific criminalization of psychological violence that has been referred. The proposal includes, among other things, strengthened criminal law protection against coercion to wear religious clothing, such as a veil.
Freedom of religion and the principle of equal treatment must always be respected. Girls' and women's right to live freely, without violence and oppression – to decide over their bodies, clothes, career choices, and lives – is fundamental for a democratic society.
Sara Gille (SD)
Mr. Speaker! Thanks to the Minister for the answer!
There should be zero tolerance for honor-related violence and oppression, but at the same time, we allow these garments in society. That doesn't rhyme very well for me.
No major international institution describes the burqa and niqab as freedom. The UN, the European Court of Human Rights, Amnesty, Human Rights Watch and UN Women agree: full-body veils are used for control, segregation and female subordination.
The UN's Commission on the Status of Women describes the burqa as a way to erase women from the public sphere. UN Women states that full-body veils make women unidentifiable and subordinate to male authorities. Human Rights Watch describes them as central to gender apartheid.
After the Taliban's return, the UN has documented that women have been whipped and arrested for the burqa not fitting correctly. In Iran, the morality police have conducted over 80,000 checks of women's clothing in two years, and over 22,000 women have been deprived of their liberty. Amnesty shows how women in Pakistan and Somalia have had their faces destroyed by acid because they refused to cover their faces.
The religious arguments that are often used are based on the Quran. But nowhere does it state that the woman should hide her face. Burka and niqab are not mentioned in the Quran. It is patriarchal constructions that restrict women's freedom. Several Muslim countries – including Tunisia and Syria – have themselves introduced restrictions against full-face veils because they hinder women's participation in society.
Against that background, it is remarkable that the Minister in his answer does not mention face coverings at all, even though the entire interpellation is actually about that. I do not know if it is because the Minister does not dare to address the issue, but it is very remarkable.
Even in Sweden, the veil requirement is part of honor-related violence and oppression. If one is to get rid of it, one must also address this issue. The County Administrative Board in Östergötland documents that control of women's clothing is an early warning sign.
We hear about schools reporting that girls are prevented from sports and swimming because their garments cannot be removed. This violates the Convention on the Rights of the Child. We have the right to believe, but we also have the right to not have to believe. Swedish society is built on openness and visibility. Full-face veils do not belong in a democratic public space.
Mr. Speaker! I would like to ask a question to the Minister given that the UN and the European Parliament define the burqa and niqab as tools for the oppression of women, which they actually are, and that several European countries have already introduced restrictions. Does the Minister believe that Sweden should continue to be one of the most permissive countries in Europe when it comes to full-face veils?
Nima Gholam Ali Pour (SD)
Mr. Speaker! I read a debate article signed by Ministers Nina Larsson and Maria Malmer Stenergard a while ago. In the debate article, one could read about everything that the government and the Sweden Democrats have implemented during this mandate period to counter honor violence.
It is quite a lot that the government and the Sweden Democrats have implemented during this mandate period. There is much to be proud of. But in the article, one could also read: "From Moscow to Tehran, women's bodies are being used as a tool for control in an ever-increasing extent. That development must be met with resistance."
I agree with the ministers. But at the same time as we want to prevent women's bodies from being controlled in other countries, we must see how women's bodies are controlled in Sweden.
When it comes to the full-face veil, it is nothing other than a tool to control women. Women are allowed to dress exactly as they want, but here it is about men who see the woman as the family's honor, as a piece of property. What they do is force the woman to dress in a sack and mask her face. Such behavior does not belong in Sweden.
If we are to be a credible party in the fight against the oppression of women around the world, we must ban Islamic oppression of women here at home in Sweden.
Mr. Speaker! It is not so difficult. Once upon a time, there were politicians who thought it was normal to chain other people. Eventually, such behavior was forbidden. Just as it is illegal to chain up other people, one must also make it forbidden to chain up women by covering them with these religious garments.
It is nothing other than being shackled when a woman is forced to dress in a certain way so that she cannot have the normal social interaction that we others have daily. She cannot get a job. She cannot have a normal life, because there are men who believe that they control her.
All this is happening here at home in Sweden. It is not just happening in Tehran. It is not just happening in Riyadh or Kabul, but we have imported the Islamic oppression of women to Sweden through Muslim immigration.
Then it is quite a few who are asking themselves: What will the Minister for Gender Equality do? Will the Minister say that this oppression of women is part of the multicultural society and the new Sweden and that we should accept this? Or will she work for these women's liberation and work for a ban on full-face veils? What will the Minister for Gender Equality do? How long will these women be chained to their veils? How long will the men decide over them?
To be passive is also a choice. If the Minister for Equality chooses to be passive in this matter, it is an active choice. It is an active betrayal of all the women who are chained to their veils.
If Sweden is to work in a credible way against the oppression of women around the world, we must lead by example here at home and ban the full-face veil.
Jämställdhetsministern Nina Larsson (L)
Mr. Speaker! We discussed exactly this question just a few weeks ago in this chamber. Just as then, I am clear that it is extremely important that this issue is raised, which both Sara Gille and Nima Gholam Ali Pour do in an exemplary manner. I thank them very much for their commitment to this issue.
Full-face facial coverings in the way the members highlight is a terrible variant and would probably in all material respects fall under the upcoming criminalization of psychological violence, which also covers coercion in terms of clothing.
It is extremely important that we work broadly with different proposals, measures, and legislation concerning honor-related violence and oppression. I believe it is problematic if one thinks that a single measure could solve everything for the women, but also the men who live under honor-related violence and oppression. That is not the case. There is no quick fix for this problem. This is a comprehensive and very complex problem that requires several measures.
I believe it is important to discuss normative legislation in many different cases. I believe it is important that we continue to discuss this issue. But it is also important that we look at other effective measures to truly ensure that women and men, regardless of background, have the right and the opportunities to shape their lives as they wish in Sweden.
Sara Gille (SD)
Mr. Speaker! I agree with the Minister that this is not the first time we have discussed the issue here in the chamber. It certainly will not be the last either – unfortunately. I will continue to press on this issue until I actually see a change. I hope that the Minister can understand that and that she can perhaps take it to heart.
Mr. Speaker! UN Women shows that women in Iran who defy the hijab requirement risk losing custody of their children, losing their jobs, being arrested, being imprisoned, or even being assaulted or murdered.
Human Rights Watch documents how women in Pakistan and Afghanistan lose inheritance rights, are subjected to family councils, are forced into marriages and so on when they refuse to wear a veil. It is about the exercise of power, not freedom. And this we allow to come to Sweden.
The EU Agency for Fundamental Rights shows that girls in Europe live under the same honor logic, where the family's honor weighs more heavily than the girl's will. It is not a distant reality. It also exists here in Sweden.
The County Administrative Board in Östergötland has shown that the obligation to wear a veil is a common element in honor oppression. Girls testify about surveillance to and from school and in school, and about requirements to wear a veil during sports and so on, with the risk of punishment if they defy it.
The social services have handled cases where children have been sent abroad to be disciplined and so on. Honor-related violence and oppression is a huge problem. It needs to be worked on hard.
Schools report on students who are prevented from participating in activities where the veil must be removed.
When women around the world risk work, education, and sometimes even their lives to show their faces, it says something about how far from voluntary these norms actually are. Research shows the same thing. Women do not wear a veil of free will. That is how it is. It is about fear of social and family-related consequences.
The Convention on the Rights of the Child prohibits religious coercion and customs that limit a child's development. Once again, it is about the right to believe and the right to not believe.
When girls are forced to cover their faces, the signs that schools and authorities need to detect vulnerability also disappear. Invisible children become harder to protect.
If one calls these garments voluntary, one ignores the logic of the culture of honor. The veil is often the first indicator that the girl's future will be restricted in terms of choice of education, social circle, work, and marriage.
Mr. Speaker! Sweden has a very great responsibility to protect these girls, who cannot protect themselves. Therefore, it is very remarkable that the Minister speaks of voluntariness without considering the pressure and the sanctions that follow when the girls actually defy the family's demands.
I would like to ask the Minister: How can the government speak of voluntariness when the UN, the EU, and Swedish authorities show that girls risk violence, threats, isolation, forced marriage, and so on when they take off the veil? Which part of this does the Minister consider compatible with Swedish gender equality policy?
Nima Gholam Ali Pour (SD)
Mr. Speaker! In Muslim countries, where full-face veils or other religious garments are forced upon women, women struggle to free themselves from this oppression. Often they risk their lives to escape this oppression. This in itself testifies that the full-face veil is nothing other than oppression. It is not a garment like others, but it is a tool to oppress women.
Once upon a time, we had politicians who did not take honor oppression seriously, even though it was obvious that girls and women were being treated badly. Now we are there again. Here we have a garment that is used in other countries to oppress women, and we have politicians who insist that in Sweden it has a completely different purpose.
Why must it take so long to see the obvious? Who is it, really, who today claims that a full-face veil is anything other than oppression? Would the Minister for Equality wear a full-face veil? What would it signal? Yes, submission and nothing else. It is about subordination and a controlled woman – nothing else.
We all have a responsibility to see reality and not hide behind vague formulations. No one misses the fact that full-face veils are a way to oppress women. I do not even believe that the Minister for Equality does that.
The question is why the government does not take the initiative to ban full-face veils in public environments, just as many other European countries have done.
Jämställdhetsministern Nina Larsson (L)
Mr. Speaker! Both members raise examples from other parts of the world in a very descriptive manner. I share those images. There is another long list that can be added to that.
This does not take away from the fact that this government is in the process of criminalizing psychological violence, which includes coercion and oppression, for example when it concerns different forms of dress codes.
This government has taken a number of different initiatives, measures, and changes and increased the pace of the work against honor-related violence and oppression on a number of different levels, both in terms of legislation and resources. It involves knowledge-raising initiatives and more.
We have a new gender equality sub-goal that clarifies that we need to work specifically against the honor-related violence and oppression based on collective norms. We are in the process of developing a long-term strategy that includes both sub-goal 6 on men's violence against women and sub-goal 7 on honor-related violence and oppression.
We are also developing a specific action plan against honor-related violence and oppression, which we are working on at the Government Offices at this moment. We have tightened the legislation on human trafficking to address exactly what is described by the members, namely that many young people, both girls and boys, are taken abroad on "re-education" trips or for the purpose of being married off. This is prevented through this legislation. A number of such cases have been able to be avoided. That legislation has had a great effect.
Just a few days ago, the criminalization of virginity checks, virginity violations, and virginity certificates entered into force in Sweden. It is an incredibly important signal, not least to healthcare personnel in Sweden who have contributed to this in various ways, more or less below the surface. It is an incredibly important signal that this can be prosecuted, and it also has a deterrent effect.
We have commissioned a number of different inquiries, not least one this spring regarding countering honor-related violence and oppression in preschool, which has been mentioned here. There are instances where staff contribute to adjusting the children's clothing according to the norms of honor-related oppression.
We are increasing and expanding the regional and local support for people who need to escape honor-related violence and oppression by allocating funds to regional resource centers. We have increased the resources for the women's shelters and a number of other things.
The government and I, as the Liberal Minister for Equality, take the issue of honor-related violence and oppression very seriously. I would never put the word voluntariness in my mouth in this context. It is about finding legislation that is sufficiently accurate. We also have legislation in progress against psychological violence.
Sara Gille (SD)
Mr. Speaker! It is very interesting to listen to the Minister. I agree with the Minister that we are doing a huge amount – much more than the previous government. But when it comes to just this, it is as if one sweeps everything under the rug before guests are coming. One doesn't have time to find out, but the problem still remains. One must tackle the underlying problem itself. The current issue is a part of that.
In Sweden, citizens must clearly show their faces at, for example, security checks. When we go through a security check, we should take off caps, hats, and the like – but not burqas and niqabs. Then there are no problems. But it is a matter of common sense for security that it should be the same with such. These people are allowed to move around fully covered with only the eyes visible in public environments. It is inconsistent and undermines the security principles that everyone must follow.
It has been documented how burqa and niqab are used to avoid identification and to smuggle both weapons and persons. Säpo also states that face coverings hinder surveillance and identification and also risk assessment.
Research shows that hidden faces create insecurity and reduce trust in society. How can the government justify that Swedish citizens must show their faces during security checks, while burqa and niqab are permitted in public environments despite Europol, Säpo, and the European Court of Human Rights stating that it is a security risk?
Jämställdhetsministern Nina Larsson (L)
Mr. Speaker! Many thanks to the members for this strong commitment! This is an incredibly important issue that deserves further discussion. I am convinced that we will turn it over and over many times in the future. But it must not be seen as solely redemptive, but we need to tackle honor-related violence and oppression in several different ways.
If one connects this to the fact that psychological violence is now being criminalized, I see great opportunities to achieve accurate effects. There is also legislation that means workplaces can have neutrality policies and set requirements for neutral clothing and the like. There are opportunities. But we need to strengthen the measures against honor-related violence and oppression and put more force behind them. I look forward to discussing the issue further.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.