Response to interpellation 2025/26:99 on the fight against the active clubs
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
The debate concerns the fight against activity clubs and violence-promoting extremism. M starts from a strategy to prevent extremism and emphasizes the importance of the cooperation Redex 1. M argues that the government is working to criminalize participation in criminal networks 1 and that it has not taken a long time to talk about right-wing extremism 2. M argues that S blocked legislation against these actors 3. S considers that the right-wing extremist threat is growing and requires more concrete measures 4. S wants to review the law on secret corporate activities 4 5 6 and argues that the government has taken a long time to talk about right-wing extremism 6.
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! Mattias Vepsä has asked me what conclusions I draw after meetings I have participated in together with researchers, authorities, and representatives of civil society regarding the tightening of the work against the far-right and the activity clubs, and whether I share the view that legislative changes are required in connection with this.
It is only a few weeks since I last answered a similar interpellation from Mattias Vepsä. That answer is, of course, also relevant for today's interpellation.
As I have previously said, the government proceeds from the strategy we have established when it comes to combating, preventing, and deterring violent extremism and terrorism. It is a powerful structure where we bring together the different actors in society who can actually act against the problem.
The follow-up of the strategy is ongoing, and when it is complete in the new year, the government intends to return to the Riksdag more formally and more collectively. But already now I can say that authorities and municipalities, within the framework of the follow-up, among other things highlight that they receive good support in the preventive work from the Center against violent extremism at the Crime Prevention Council. They also highlight the cooperation between the Police Authority and the Security Service to reduce extremism, Redex, as an important actor that also provides good support. It is about providing operational specialist support to the local police areas in this work. In addition, Redex assists municipalities with analyzing and understanding these problems and developing effective working methods to prevent violent extremism and attacks of various kinds. By sharing relevant information and cooperating with each other, authorities and municipalities can jointly develop the preventive work.
As I also expressed during the previous debate on this issue, it is important that the legislation is designed in a purposeful way in order to address the underlying structures.
The government has also taken the initiative for several important legislative changes to give the law enforcement authorities better opportunities to combat serious crime, something that has an impact even when serious crimes are committed in extremist environments. This includes, for example, confidentiality-breaking provisions to facilitate for authorities to prevent, hinder, or detect criminal activity. The rules on secret and preventive coercive measures have also been reformed in several respects to keep pace with societal and technological developments.
In the field of criminal law, we have, among other things, implemented reforms that affect those who engage in threats and violence against both elected officials and individuals, and right now, the proposals from the Criminal Reform Commission are being prepared, which among other things contain proposals for modernizations and tightenings of the penal system that, taken together, can be expected to lead to sentences becoming significantly longer than today, also regarding the crime we are talking about here and now.
In addition to this, the government is working purposefully to make it punishable to participate in criminal networks. This reform was unfortunately blocked by the Social Democrats during the entire previous mandate period. During this mandate period, we have primarily criminalized participation in terrorist organizations. In the near future, we intend to submit proposals to the Riksdag regarding changes to the constitutional protection of freedom of association, which is a prerequisite for being able to enable further criminalization covering criminal networks in the next step.
The government has also initiated an investigation tasked with utilizing the space that is now being created in the constitution by submitting proposals for a specific criminal liability for those who participate in or have dealings with a criminal association. Such a regulation will, depending on the circumstances of the concrete case, also be able to affect those who participate in violent extremist groups, such as an active club.
As a society, we have a duty to react strongly against, among other things, gross and ruthless violence with racist motives. No one in Sweden should have to be afraid of being subjected to unprovoked violence simply because they have a foreign background or have a foreign appearance. The Government takes the threats coming from various violence-oriented extremist environments with the utmost seriousness, and we also act with a determination that reflects the gravity of the crime. We follow the developments closely and continuously consider new measures and interventions.
Mattias Vepsä (S)
Mr. Speaker! I thank the Minister for the answer. We have had many debates, so to some extent I understand that the Minister is reusing material from previous debates. Just as the Minister said at the beginning, it is only a few weeks since we stood here, and today's answer largely resembles the answer I received then, even if it is somewhat modified.
A few weeks ago, I received the newsletter from the Centre against Violence-promoting Extremism, CVE, and could then observe that the right-wing extremist threat continues to grow throughout society. For example, right-wing extremist groups want to resume the Salem demonstrations just outside Stockholm to commemorate the death of a right-wing extremist nearly 20 years ago. We also read about how school attacks planned by youths with right-wing extremist motives are being countered. This shows that the problem is growing in scope, and just as I said in the previous debate, it is important that we quickly get more concrete measures in place.
Around Stockholm County, the need for a mapping of how exactly the emergence and growth of activity clubs look is being raised from a municipal level. The authorities give somewhat different messages here, which we took up a few weeks ago. Just as the minister said in his response, CVE has a responsibility to support the municipalities, and Säpo has a responsibility to keep track of all extremism and terrorism and what the collective threat looks like in order to be able to protect us from this. In Nacka municipality, the idea of a mapping has been raised, and in the city of Stockholm, government colleagues of Gunnar Strömmer in the Liberals have raised the need for a mapping. This is at the municipal level, but the responsibility should be national because that is where the collective competence exists. It is about seeing the entire situational picture regarding how large the growth is in the country and what needs to be done further to strengthen the municipalities in their work to keep track of, for example, who is renting a premises. They need to know what this threat looks like so that they can combat it.
In my interpellation, I tried to be concrete again, and I appreciate that the Minister, in his modified answer, took up the results of his meetings with civil society and the authorities. I am pleased to hear that CVE's work is appreciated and that the situation reports can be used.
But I think we could get further sharp proposals from the minister going forward. In my interpellation, I mention, among other things, the Social Democrats' proposal to review the law on secret corporate activity. In his answer, the minister points to various legislative proposals, which are on the government's and partly soon on the parliament's table, regarding reviewing various grounds for increased penalties and so on. The question, however, is whether they will affect secret corporate activity. There is already some legislation in place, such as tightened anti-terrorism legislation, and crimes committed in specifically criminal networks are a ground for increased penalties. But for the sake of clarity, is the minister ready to review the law on secret corporate activity?
Anna Wallentheim (S)
Mr. Speaker! I begin by thanking my colleague Mattias Vepsä for continuing to pursue this issue. I will also be clear that I will waive my second contribution and only make one contribution to highlight a local example and my own concern regarding the issue.
This issue cannot wait. We see that the far-right is growing in the world, in Sweden, and unfortunately also in my own local area. Just a few weeks ago, we could read in Skånes Folkblad that far-right extremists from both Sweden and Denmark gathered in Svenskarnas hus in Vollsjö. Behind the arrangement were the so-called "activist clubs," i.e., networks that not only spread racist propaganda but also train together in combat techniques and build up a large and concrete capital of violence. In pictures from the meeting, participants are seen posing in front of a Scanian and a Danish flag, and they themselves describe how they exchange handshakes, punches, and kicks, and that this was a meeting intended to strengthen the bonds between brother peoples.
These are far-right extremists who openly train for violence on Swedish soil in cooperation with Danish groups. That this is happening in Skåne is unfortunately no coincidence. We know that there are links between Aktivklubb Skåne and Det fria Sverige, which runs Svenskarnas hus. It is an environment that provides space for white nationalism, antisemitism, and pro-violence ideology, but unfortunately also a fairly large threat and hatred towards the LGBTQI movement.
I therefore become concerned when I hear that it is clear that it is important that we get situation reports, that meetings are held and so on, but many times we already have a situation report, which both the minister and my colleague have accounted for.
We see how violence is celebrated in chats, we see how assault has led to indictments, and we see how threats against elected officials increase from year to year. I share my colleague's view that cooperation and strategies are not always enough, but we need concrete measures.
It is about strengthening the justice system's tools to act against these environments, and it is about reviewing legislation on secret group activities and so on. But it is also about something larger: defending our democracy. When far-right groups train for violence against those with different opinions and threaten elected officials, people with a different identity, or people from the LGBTQI movement, it is no longer just a small marginal issue but an attack against our society and that which we are tasked to protect.
It is a problem that must have many solutions. Education about the active clubs was needed within all parts of the justice system. We need to reclaim the fight and the discussion about the value base in all the country's schools, and we must also strengthen civil society.
I have a fairly short but simple question for the minister: How does the government intend to act before these groups have had a chance to become even stronger?
Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)
Mr. Speaker! I would like to thank both Mattias Vepsä and Anna Wallentheim for the opportunity to discuss these important issues today.
To begin with, I want to emphasize that the new and merged strategy against violent extremism and terrorism is the government's strongest steering measure and also support for various social actors to achieve a collective systemic force against all forms of violent extremism.
Over a longer period, we as a society have followed the threats from violent Islamism, autonomous left-wing and right-wing extremism. In recent years, the threats have primarily come from violent Islamists and right-wing extremists. That there is a significant focus on these threats from the side of our authorities is confirmed in a number of different ways.
Regarding the activity clubs and the far-right extremism, the Swedish Security Service (Säkerhetspolisen) has, not least during this year, both presented analyses linked to conducted mappings and described what the problem looks like, as well as various measures aimed at addressing the problem. A significant part is that the strategy is very action-oriented, regarding the question of what we as a society do against this.
The strategy contains four clear action components. It is about preventing violent extremism and terrorism and preventing attacks and other ideologically motivated crimes. It is also about protecting society and society's functions against the various threats.
In the event that a crime is actually committed or that an attack takes place, it must be able to be handled in as effective a way as possible. This is my first and very important point. It is, therefore, an action-oriented strategy, and very concrete measures are taken by reason of it.
Regarding the ongoing evaluation of how the strategy has broken through in practice, it is a reality that the evaluation is taking place at this moment. As I said, we had a discussion about this just a couple of weeks ago. I am happy to talk about it every week and, in that regard, every day, but the entire basis from the evaluation will not be in place until some way into next year. When we return to the Riksdag, a follow-up of the concrete measures will of course be included – whether they are sufficient, what we should do further if they are not, and so on.
Regarding local mapping, I want to emphasize that there are no obstacles at all to breaking down national mappings into local contexts. If one does so and wants support in this work, for example from the Center against Violence-Oriented Extremism, state support is available.
As said, the interaction between the Police Authority and the Security Service within the framework of Redex, the work to reduce extremist threats, is a cooperation where one gladly provides a basis for more local situational pictures. This work does not need to wait for anyone, it is just a matter of doing it. There is a proper basis at the national level to achieve this.
Regarding legislation, it is perhaps a bit symptomatic that the Social Democrats are digging into legislation that has at least 80 years on its back. It concerns the old guild activity legislation, which came into being in a World War II context. As I have said before, I do not rule out that that legislation should also be reviewed.
It is no coincidence that the modern discussion on how this type of threat should be addressed revolves around a different kind of legislation – the broader participation legislation that we have put in place regarding terrorism and that we are now on our way to putting in place regarding criminal networks, including crime in the types of environments that we are talking about today. It will be in place as soon as possible.
Mattias Vepsä (S)
Mr. Speaker! I thank you for the answer.
I believe it is worth reminding oneself how the authorities themselves describe the activity clubs: Through hard training and discipline, they prepare themselves for the fight against democracy. According to CVE, Säpo warns that young Swedes are quickly radicalized into the clubs' violence-seeking environments.
The material from these clubs is completely open online. With a simple search, it is possible to access very crude images and videos, and one can read completely openly about the vision for the activity clubs: to fight with struggle for one's own future against what is happening in Sweden, that is, one's own extermination. This is an ideology that has been taken from Nazism. This is ongoing, and the clubs are growing.
We had a discussion a few weeks ago. Several who map these activities, including authorities but also parts of civil society, such as Expo which has long experience in examining the far-right environment, point out that there is a dark figure but that the activity exists across the entire country, in about forty places, and that it is growing.
When this became relevant this summer, we were told by the government that participation in an activist club was bad company, but today the government joyfully says that it is terrorism, or at least such serious criminal association that it needs to be punishable. It is joyful that we have received such a tightening from the government when it comes to the view on activist clubs.
We Social Democrats have for many years been subjected to right-wing extremist violence. I want to remind that just a few years ago, the Social Democrats had their May 1st demonstrations interrupted, but we have also seen throughout society how right-wing extremists, using violence, attack peaceful demonstrators and meeting activities by storming premises.
It is not always the current legislation that bites, and I am a bit worried that the upcoming legislation will not bite either. It can be a rhetorical trick to say that the Social Democrats are looking back at legislation from the 30s, but much of the legislation that is on the Riksdag's table and that the Riksdag is to take a position on has many years on its back.
I know that the Penal Code is part of the cultural canon, and I assume that we develop our legislation because we believe that the right things were done in the past. We have had experiences, but we must tweak the laws so that they function for the time we live in now. The vast majority who take note of the rise of activist clubs and right-wing extremism can, however, state that the times look quite similar. We have right-wing populism, we have Nazi organizations, and we have violent extremism of various kinds that have pushed forward their positions because they want something other than democracy.
In that respect, the 1930s unfortunately repeat a bit. Then we think that the legislation on secret guild activities that we have proposed should be looked at was used to prevent the emergence of private paramilitary groups roughly like the one we see now, when activist clubs with capital of violence are ready to move from words to action.
The question that my colleague Anna Wallentheim asked is highly relevant. How long will we have to wait? How long will we have to be afraid that more acts of violence will be committed before the government is willing to meet with us and review this legislation?
Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)
Mr. Speaker! The problem is that Sweden and the Swedish people have had to wait for several years for necessary legislation because the Social Democrats blocked the possibilities to create conditions for legislation that also hits this type of actor when they engage in criminal activity.
In relation to the ongoing constitutional committee, I and my colleague personally pushed during the previous term against my predecessor Morgan Johansson and the Socialdemokraterna that the concept of terrorist organizations should also include criminal networks that are not necessarily classified as terrorist organizations – this because it reflects the threat to our internal security in a much better way. It covers, of course, organized crime but also to a very high degree threats from different types of violent extremist environments, including the far-right environment – I would perhaps even say not least the far-right environment because we know that it is a latent threat that also has a capacity for violence. Unfortunately, we were not heard on this, and since this is a constitutional issue, it means that we lost at least four years in this work.
Pleasantly enough, during this parliamentary term, we have received a majority for a necessary constitutional amendment to enable the criminalization of participation in other criminal organizations and criminal networks than just terrorist organizations. It is clear that it would have been much better if this had been in place. It is not. But that delay shall therefore be blamed on the Social Democrats and not the Moderates.
This does not in itself exclude the possibility that one can also look at other legislation, and the fact that legislation is old is not in itself a reason not to look at it. But one must see what reality looks like and ask oneself what legislative conditions we need to have in order to be able to tackle this problem.
I just want to state, as we now discuss how we are to meet this type of threat, that it is no coincidence that in all comparable countries, work is being done on legislation that criminalizes a broader participation. There are many reasons for that, but I will mention one reason. There is also a difference if we compare with the problems that were handled 60, 70, 80, 90 years ago. Back then, it was more formal associations or organizations in the traditional sense. Today, it is often network-based environments without fixed organizational forms, which are therefore not affected by prohibitions aimed at an organization or an association as such. That is why we are now working on the terror side, until now only in relation to terrorists but now also in relation to other criminal groupings, with legislation on participation.
I am, as I have said, not closing the door when it comes to illegal vehicle activities. But I note that the legislation that we – and not just us but also authorities in this area – assess will be able to have a very concrete effect against today's threats unfortunately is delayed, not because of me but because of Mattias Vepsä and the Social Democrats. Now that legislation is moving forward, and it will give us significantly much better tools, also against the real threats from not least the far-right side, which I in turn want to emphasize that I appreciate Mattias Vepsä highlighting.
Mattias Vepsä (S)
Mr. Speaker! I thank you once again for this debate. I believe we have every reason to return.
We have highlighted a very concrete proposal to review the law on secret corporate activities precisely because the activities that one wanted to access then are quite similar to the activities that are emerging today.
I am afraid that this could become yet another failure on the government's part. Sometimes I ask myself in the chamber if this has to do with the friends one has chosen to cooperate with. Do you not want to take a hard line against the right-wing extremism, and do you not want to speak plainly about the right-wing extremism?
Now I think, as I said earlier, that we have seen a shift and received a clarification from the government's side when it comes to precisely the activity clubs. It is welcome, but it has taken a long time during this mandate period to get to talk about right-wing extremism when we have wanted to talk about right-wing extremism because there has been a tendency for the government to want to talk about everything else.
With that said, this could become a failure as great as the preventive work to break the new recruitment into gangs. We see a 500 percent increase of young people involved in serious crimes, in murder cases. Will we have to see a wave of acts of violence from active clubs before we get legislation in place? Does Gunnar Strömmer and the government mean that a constitutional amendment is required to look at the law on secret club activities?
When it comes to the special criminal liability for participation in criminal gangs, the Social Democrats have opened up to proceed with legislation. I do not think we should end up in a discussion about who has delayed for the longest time, but it is now the government that has responsibility for the legislative work and must present sharp proposals. We have pointed out a way, a tool, that we believe could make a big difference here and now without needing to sit down for several years and investigate.
Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)
Mr. Speaker! It is a bit difficult to take Mattias Vepsäs's commitment seriously because, from a broad and, I think, in itself adequate description of the problem, he nevertheless ends up in rather slack party-political polemics.
It was not I who raised the question of who is dragging their feet, but it was Mattias Vepsä. I then answer, as a correct consumer information, what the reason is that we are four years behind in the cycle when it comes to legislation that can actually hit exactly that problem that Mattias Vepsä raises. That responsibility is therefore not mine, but it is Mattias Vepsä's and the Social Democrats'.
I am glad that we now have support for this and that we will therefore receive modern legislation intended to address today's security threats on the spot. But that it has taken so long is the Social Democrats' responsibility, not mine. I think it is reasonable that I am allowed to answer that question because the accusation went in the opposite direction.
The second thing is that it has not taken at all a long time to get to speak with this government about right-wing extremism. From the first day of this assignment, when I described the threats to internal security in Sweden, I have said that it is about organized crime, state actors, and extremism. When it comes to extremism, I have every time said that it is about threats from three sides, seen over time: violent Islamism, the autonomous left, and right-wing extremism. I have also always added, when it comes to our threat picture here and now, that the threats primarily come from two sides: violent Islamism and right-wing extremism. That insight is also supported by the sources that Mattias Vepsä refers to, namely the authorities that fall under the Ministry of Justice: the Swedish Security Service and the Swedish Crime Prevention Council through the Center against Violent Extremism.
It is therefore on the government's mandate that the mapping of these problems takes place. It is against that background that we have presented an incredibly offensive strategy when it comes to countering both terrorism and violent Islamism, and it is against that background that we are now sitting down with all those concerned – municipalities, authorities, the research community and others – to take further steps. I look forward to returning to the Riksdag in the new year and reporting on that work.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.