Response to interpellation 2025/26:429 on the protection of freedom of expression in relation to proposition 2025/26:133

Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)

Mr. Speaker! Rashid Farivar has asked me a number of questions regarding the proposals in Proposition 2025/26:133 S increased security at public gatherings and public events, including what consequences the proposals may have. Rashid Farivar has previously asked similar questions to me which I answered last month.

Let me initially emphasize that the government fully shares the Member of Parliament's view on the fundamental importance of freedom of expression in our society. Sweden has a long tradition of safeguarding the free word. The right to assemble and demonstrate are cornerstones of our democratic order. This right applies to everyone – even to those who wish to express opinions that others may perceive as provocative or offensive. It is a self-evident starting point that these freedoms should not only be respected but also actively protected.

The proposals in the government's bill aim to strengthen security at public gatherings and public events. The proposals do not, however, in any way aim to prohibit or restrict expressions of opinion that may be considered controversial.

None of the proposals give the police expanded powers to deny permission for a public assembly. The grounds for when permission for a public assembly may be denied are therefore proposed to remain unchanged. In other words, the police authority will not be given more room than today to deny permission for, for example, a Quran burning or other controversial expressions of opinion with reference to security risks.

One of the proposals aims to give the police an explicit legal basis to change the time and place for a public assembly. Time and place shall be able to be changed when the alternative is to completely deny permission for the assembly. The proposal will therefore give the police access to a milder alternative in cases where it would otherwise have been necessary to completely deny permission for the assembly. The result of the changes that we propose can therefore be that more – not fewer – demonstrations are granted permission.

Another proposal is that the police should be able to cancel a public assembly or public event when the safety of people's lives or health requires it, for example in the case of serious attack threats. Today, the police may disperse a demonstration with regard to the safety of people's lives and health but cannot cancel it in advance. In practice, this means that the police are forced to wait, even if they know that an assembly will need to be dispersed as soon as it begins due to serious risks to people's lives or health.

The requirement "with regard to the safety of people's lives or health" will almost correspond to the requirements that apply today for dissolving a demonstration due to significant danger to those present. It will not be sufficient with more severe disorder or serious traffic disruptions; there must be an unacceptable danger to people's lives or health. This means that there will be high requirements for a demonstration to be cancelled in advance.

The answer to the Member of Parliament's questions is therefore that the proposals in the bill do not give the police any new power to deny permits for public gatherings and that it will still be a strong starting point that the organizer has the freedom to choose the time and place for the gathering themselves. It will also continue to be required that there are weighty reasons for a gathering to be denied a permit due to feared public order disturbances, and the threshold for pre-emptively cancelling a demonstration will also continue to be high.

I will carefully follow these questions and work to ensure that individuals' fundamental freedoms and rights are protected.

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

Rashid Farivar (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Minister of Justice Gunnar Strömmer for the answer.

Sweden has a proud and world-unique tradition of safeguarding freedom of speech. As early as 1766, Sweden became the first in the world with a constitutionally protected freedom of the press act. Together with the freedom of expression, demonstration, and assembly in the Instrument of Government, this constitutes the very bedrock of our democracy.

Historically, Sweden has been a sanctuary where opinions can clash without fear of state reprisals or censorship. That we live in an open society means that we must accept expressions that may be perceived as deeply offensive or provocative. This is the price of our freedom. We must never let intolerant forces dictate the boundaries of our civil liberties.

The background to the government's bill is well-known and very important. During 2022 and 2023, a number of Quran burnings were carried out in Sweden, which led to violent riots, the so-called Quran riots, as well as international reactions and demands to restrict freedom of expression and assembly. Among other things, demands for a ban on Quran burnings were put forward by both the Socialdemokraterna and 57 Muslim countries within the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation, OIC.

During the summer of 2023, the government commissioned an inquiry into amending the Public Order Act to be able to ban Quran burnings in the same way as Denmark did in December 2023. That line met with strong criticism – primarily only from the Sverigedemokraterna – not least because restrictions under external pressure risk signaling that our fundamental principles are negotiable. The inquiry was later put on ice after being presented in June 2024.

After the aggressive persecution that Civil Defense Minister Carl-Oskar Bohlin was subjected to in September 2025, the government nevertheless chose to proceed, and now we have the bill on the Riksdag's table. In the bill, it is proposed, among other things, as the Minister for Justice mentioned, that the police shall be able to cancel a public assembly if it is necessary with regard to the safety of people's lives or health.

Mr. Speaker! The wording in the legislative text raises a crucial question: Can the Minister for Justice clearly guarantee – I use the word guarantee – that this proposal will not in practice lead to the Police Authority stopping Quran burnings or other controversial expressions of opinion by referring to security risks resulting from threats of violence, such as those we witnessed during 2022 and 2023?

Last week, I received information in a telephone call with a police chief that this legislative change could be used in exactly that way.

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

Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you to Rashid Farivar for the opportunity to discuss these important issues here today!

The reason they are significant is, as the member himself pointed out, that freedom of expression and the right to organize public gatherings and other related expressions of opinion is a fundamental chord in our democracy and our democratic rule of law. The entire starting point for our work in this area is not only to preserve that freedom and right but, preferably, also to strengthen and develop it.

I would just like to say something about the background and possibly correct some of the things that were said from the member's side. It is quite true that the triggering factor for the investigation was the development of events in the spring of 2023, during the Swedish Natoprocess. It is quite true that a number of public gatherings were held then where Qurans were burned and that this created great attention internationally. It also accelerated, one can still say, a terror threat against Sweden.

This led to the terror threat level being raised from a three to a four on our five-point scale because Sweden was judged to be moving from being a legitimate target for terror attacks, that is, a Western country among others, to being a prioritized target.

I also want to remind that this was a year when the Swedish mission in Baghdad was set on fire and two Swedish football supporters were shot dead in Belgium during the autumn. If one added this to a long-standing disinformation campaign about the Swedish social services, there were overall good reasons to say that it was obvious that this type of public expression could also affect the country's security. I actually believe it was a rather uncontroversial statement, because this was a reality.

I want to be clear in saying that Denmark decided to go a different way, namely to ban certain expressions in advance due to their content, that is, to ban Quran burnings. It is quite true that it was a proposal that was also raised by the Social Democrats.

When the government launched the investigation, I was very clear that for Sweden's part, it was not at all relevant to pre-emptively ban certain types of expressions based on their content, purpose, and so on. What we, on the other hand, wanted to highlight was this question: Should there be a basis to cancel a public assembly if one, for example, sees that a terrorist attack is imminent? It was therefore about broadening the possibility to protect citizens against life-threatening violence linked to expressions of opinion. This was the starting point.

Then the investigation submitted its proposals. A fairly broad consensus emerged early on that introducing a new ground for denying a public assembly would, in practice, entail great risks for national security, for example, that other forces and foreign actors rather than ourselves would be those who set the boundaries for our freedom of expression.

The government therefore chose early on to declare that we do not intend to proceed with this. The proposals may remain in the filing cabinet for what we can call constitutional preparedness and other serious crisis situations in the future. But it is nothing that is current to proceed with now.

On the other hand, the investigator submitted some proposals that are more about clarifying the existing order, i.e., not changing it but clarifying it. It even involves giving the police a broader register. Instead of refusing permission for a gathering due to order and security linked to the gathering, the police are given the opportunity to grant permission for the gathering, but at a different time and in a different location, where it is judged that the risks to order and security are lower. In this way, it is still possible to carry out a gathering.

This is the background to this measure. It is about creating greater clarity, greater legal certainty and greater predictability, but not in any way expanding the scope to deny assemblies because of their potentially controversial content.

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

Rashid Farivar (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Minister of Justice, for the answer!

In the proposition, it is also proposed that the Swedish Police Authority should be able to decide on a different time or place for a gathering than the one specified. On paper, this may appear reasonable, but in practice, it risks having far-reaching consequences.

Freedom of demonstration is not only about the right to express an opinion but also about the right to do so in a way that the message actually reaches. A right to demonstrate that in practice is referred to remote or irrelevant places or times is not a real right to demonstrate.

The police already have the opportunity today to engage in dialogue regarding time and place. It is a well-functioning system. But when dialogue is replaced by unilateral decisions, a principled shift of power occurs from the citizens to the state.

The wording regarding the possibility of canceling gatherings in advance also has flaws. The formulation is too broad. The requirement of a terrorist attack is not in the legal text, and in the end, it is the legal text that applies. This is what is usually called the perpetrators' veto. If threats of violence become decisive for whether a public assembly may be carried out or not, we have in practice a system where the one who threatens the most also receives the most power. This is a dangerous development in a constitutional state.

Mr. Speaker! It is important to ask the question: What is the reason for this legislative change? It is not a broad popular demand. It is not a democratic movement. It is violence and threats of violence. Violence against police, threats against Swedish interests abroad and attacks on individuals – unfortunately, this is what is driving the change. Then we must be clear: Legislation that restricts freedom in response to violence risks legitimizing precisely that violence.

The proposition practically signifies a paradigm shift. The police risk having to take into account what reactions an opinion may provoke rather than protecting the right to express it. At the same time, legislation already exists to handle public order disturbances and violent counter-demonstrators. The problem is not a lack of tools, but in many cases resources and application. The risk is that the legislation instead strengthens anti-democratic forces when it sends the signal that threats and violence can influence public debate.

Mr. Speaker! If the aim is to strengthen security at public gatherings, there are more accurate measures, above all prosecuting those who use violence to silence others. It is about prosecuting those who throw stones and set fire to police cars. Instead, this legislation is directed at those who want to use free speech. It risks weakening our democratic resilience instead of strengthening it.

I would therefore like to ask Minister of Justice Gunnar Strömmer: What considerations has the Minister made regarding these risks?

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

Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)

Mr. Speaker! I am an extremely warm supporter of paradigm shifts in a long series of different areas. This applies, for example, to the view on punishment, where I want to upgrade the interests of the crime victims and societal protection and put them before the perpetrator's, and it also applies in many other contexts.

What we are talking about now is not an expression of a paradigm shift; it is an incorrect description. I do not at all share the description that the member makes of either the intentions behind the bill or the effects that it is claimed to be able to have.

It is not, I want to emphasize, that the police, with this legislation, receive any new powers to deny a permit for a gathering based on the gathering's purpose, content, actors, or message. What it is about, if we look at it practically, is to clarify the toolbox that the legislator has assumed the police have and which the police themselves also previously assumed one had.

In a situation where it was judged that one had to deny a permit for a gathering with reference to public order and security, the police previously perceived themselves to have greater flexibility. One could say: We do not need to refuse this permit. We can allow this demonstration but at a different time and a different place. Then we avoid these public order disturbances. That possibility is lacking today after a number of court rulings that have not quite gone in line with what I believe the legislator expected from the legislation.

One could just as well say that we are correcting this. We are restoring the legal situation that everyone has assumed still applies. The point, therefore, is that the police should have greater flexibility to allow gatherings even when there are risks to order and security, not the opposite.

It is quite true that time and place – it is also something we are very careful to emphasize – are not always but often can be a very important part of the expression of opinion. If I am allowed to say the same thing at another time in another place, it does not have the same power.

It is naturally something that also permeates our regulation: One should have as a starting point to always grant permission at the time and at the place that the person who wishes to hold the public assembly desires, precisely because of the insight that the time and place can often be an important part, or in any case a part, of the expression of opinion.

What it boils down to is that in a situation where the order and security are such that one judges that one must refuse a permit – something the police can already do under today's rules – the police are given the opportunity to designate another time and another place to enable the assembly instead of refusing the permit and canceling it. This can more correctly be described as us strengthening and developing freedom of expression and the right to hold public assemblies rather than dismantling or limiting them.

I naturally also agree that this should be seen in a context where the police have many other tools at their disposal. Now we are standing in the Swedish Parliament, and some years ago many perceived that it was very rowdy between the two parliamentary buildings. It became an intrusive and troublesome situation for members who worked in the buildings and for the general public who were to pass through. It is clear that it is possible to use other legislative tools. It was not about public gatherings under the Public Order Act, but the police could, by applying other provisions in the Police Act, say: Of course you should be allowed to express your opinion, but stand over here at Mynttorget so you are still close to the Parliament and we can maintain order and security in a good way.

Those who are truly violent or threaten others shall be prosecuted with completely different tools.

This should be seen as a confirmation of the order we already have but with increased flexibility for the police to allow assemblies rather than preventing them.

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

Rashid Farivar (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I thank the Minister for Justice for the answer.

Questions about freedom of expression and freedom of assembly and meeting are very important to me. I believe it stems from the country I come from, where there is no right to express oneself freely or any democracy. I therefore think that we absolutely should not take the freedoms and rights we have in Sweden for granted.

My problem is fundamentally about the proposed legislative text in Section 22 a: "In addition to what is stated in Section 22, the Police Authority may prohibit a public assembly or public event or impose conditions according to Section 16 second paragraph if it is necessary with regard to the safety of people's lives or health." There, it says nothing about which people's lives and health it concerns.

I asked a theoretical question to a police chief I spoke with last week: If a number of Swedes and Ukrainians are to demonstrate outside the Russian embassy in Stockholm and Russia threatens to bomb Gotland, will you have the authority to cancel that demonstration? The answer was: Yes, we will have that.

The problem is that the legal text is not clear. With all due respect to the Minister of Justice's statements and answers, I think what would be best for Sweden's democracy and freedom would be for the government to withdraw the bill entirely and let the public order act prevail. It works just fine today, both practically and with case law.

Many police officers have actually also helped me with the text for this interpellation.

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

Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)

Mr. Speaker! Once again, thanks to Rashid Farivar that we are given the opportunity to discuss these important issues in the Swedish Riksdag! I think it is excellent that we have a lively debate about something so fundamental in our society and our democracy as freedom of expression and freedom of assembly.

It is therefore all the more important to be careful in the way we describe the issues. I think again that it is important to emphasize that this legislation, therefore, does not give the police any new tools to ban demonstrations or other public gatherings based on content or purpose, that is, the Danish model which the Social Democrats also advocated in connection with the Quran burnings in the spring of 2023. It is a path that we have rejected.

The Swedish model in this area is not to review content. There are external boundaries regarding hate speech against groups and other such things, but it is an ex-post control and nothing that one tries to evaluate in advance in order to then grant or deny permission. That must, in that case, be handled under criminal law ex-post.

We have our principles. In this case, order and security are the foundation. What we are doing now is to rectify the legislation so that it aligns with the way the Public Order Act was intended to function and the way the vast majority have also assumed it functions. There are a number of court rulings that have gone against the police. The police are requesting a clearer regulation, and that is what is being provided here.

One must still, if one is part of our way of legislating in Sweden, read the legal text together with the preparatory works. It is clear that it is not possible to capture every individual incident in the legal text. That must be clarified in the preparatory works. If one reads the whole, it is unambiguous.

What it is about is that if the police today, on very good grounds, judge that a terrorist attack will occur in connection with a public assembly, one cannot refuse the permit on that basis. One must wait until the assembly has started and then cancel it. Here, we give the police an opportunity to act the opposite way in the event of a terrorist act and refuse the permit in the first instance. I believe that most people think that is balanced, because it truly protects people's lives and health.

The interpellations debate was hereby concluded.

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