Response to interpellations 2024/25:60 and 88 on racism

Statsrådet Paulina Brandberg (L)

Madam Speaker! [The member] has asked me if it is my and the Government's intention in the upcoming action plan against racism and hate crimes to rank different types of racism, not based on the severity of the actions but based on whom the racism is directed towards, whether such a ranking would be compatible with the Instrument of Government, and what measures beyond the action plan I intend to implement to ensure that the public's representatives, in accordance with the Instrument of Government, shall counteract discrimination of people due to circumstances concerning the individual as a person.

Ola Möller has asked the Prime Minister how he believes a statement on different forms of racism is compatible with the Instrument of Government. The interpellation has been handed over to me.

I want to start by thanking the interpellants for the questions. In recent years, authorities and other actors have contributed to more knowledge on how different forms of racism and discrimination continue to pose a challenge within several areas of society. Important steps have also been taken so that various public activities can gain a better ability to integrate the work against racism into their own operations. At the same time, the efforts in the area have not been sufficient.

With the action plan against racism and hate crimes that is currently being developed, the government wants to create conditions so that the work in the area becomes accurate, evaluable, and long-term. An important starting point is to develop clear goals for the work and give the authorities better conditions to achieve these.

Another important focus for the action plan is that the implementation of the work shall be carried out collectively against racism and hate crimes, while it is also important, without ranking them, to focus particularly on different forms of racism in order to capture the vulnerability of different groups and increase the effectiveness of the measures.

Employees within public activities have a special responsibility to counteract racism and discrimination and to promote the equal value of all people. The Equality Ombudsman has supervision over that the Discrimination Act (2008:567) is followed and shall, among other things, work to ensure that discrimination does not occur in any areas of social life.

In the report An expanded protection against discrimination (SOU 2021:94), it is proposed that the Discrimination Act should be amended so that the prohibition against discrimination in certain public activities is expanded to include not only treatment but also the public employee's actions and failure to take actions, in those activities where this does not already apply. The Government intends to prepare a legislative proposal on expanded protection against discrimination regarding public activities.

The government is therefore implementing several measures to prevent and counteract various forms of racism and discrimination in our society. It is the government's intention to continue that work with united strength.

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

Märta Stenevi (MP)

Madam Speaker! I would like to thank the Minister very much for the answer, and I shall also this time begin by praising the government.

That the government marks its stance against antisemitism and highlights the vulnerability of the Jewish minority is extremely important, and I know that it is very important for Swedish Jews. When the issue is raised by the government, clearly and distinctly and with emphasis, it also evokes a sense of belonging and that one's life is taken seriously.

This is important for all people. We need to know that we are important, that we are worth defending and that our lives are worth just as much as our neighbor's. I have followed the Minister for a time, both on social media and through traditional media. I see how great and, as I experience it, genuine her commitment is.

Mr. Speaker, for the same reason I have posed my question, for it is not only for the Jewish minority that this is important. Minister Brandberg has an incredibly important task. She is to work to uphold the provisions of the Instrument of Government regarding everyone's equal value and counteract discrimination.

Madam Speaker! Paulina Brandberg has on many occasions shown that she feels strongly about equality and women's rights. I appreciate this very much - as a politician and a Green Party member but also as a woman and a mother.

Paulina Brandberg points out in her response to the upcoming action plan that no ranking shall be made between different forms of racism. But the Prime Minister has clearly expressed his opinion on this. In Dagens Nyheter on September 27, the Prime Minister expressed that antisemitism was a worse form of racism than Islamophobia. I therefore want to repeat my rather direct question to the Minister: Does Minister Brandberg share the Prime Minister's view that there is a ranking between different forms of racism, and how does she, in that case, consider this to be compatible with the Instrument of Government?

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

Ola Möller (S)

Madam Speaker! I must, of course, thank the Minister for the answer. I can also begin by agreeing with what Märta Stenevi says about the struggle for the Jewish people's opportunities to live a full and good life in Sweden; it is important.

But I must admit that I am astonished. I ask a direct question to Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson. He does not bother to come to the Riksdag. Then he sends a minister who lumps together my interpellation with a question from another member regarding an action plan, and the answer is devoted practically only to the action plan. My question to the Prime Minister is practically ignored. I do not believe it is the minister sitting here who is behind this, but it is the Prime Minister who simply, cowardly, does not dare to answer direct questions to him about his statement himself. I think it is weak.

Hundreds of thousands of Swedes have, in fact, been told by the Prime Minister that the racism they are subjected to is not as serious as other racism. To a direct question on whether antisemitism is more serious than sharing hate images of Islam, that is, Islamophobia, the Prime Minister answers yes. The Prime Minister says that one type of racism is more serious than another. The question then is whether he also ranks anti-Gypsyism in relation to Afrophobia and antisemitism in relation to other racism. Where does this end?

The big question that arises is actually how this squares with the Instrument of Government Chapter 1, Section 2: "The public shall counteract discrimination of people on the basis of gender, skin color, national or ethnic origin, linguistic or religious affiliation, disability, sexual orientation, age or other circumstances concerning the individual as a person." It is completely clear, and yet the Prime Minister chooses to answer yes to the question of whether one kind of racism is more serious than another.

Since the Minister has devoted a great deal of time to the action plan in her response and I understand that the Minister will probably continue to do so for tactical reasons because she most likely does not want to review her boss, I shall make it very simple for her. Is it the Minister's intention that racism can be ranked, yes or no?

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

Statsrådet Paulina Brandberg (L)

Madam Speaker! I want to start by correcting the member somewhat. In the interview referred to, the Prime Minister did not answer yes. The Prime Minister answered: "Yes, spreading antisemitism that targets Jews as a people, that is really bad." That was the meaning in its entirety. The Prime Minister was asked about this in the weekend's party leadership debate and expressed himself as follows: I also said in that interview that all extremism, racism or religious intolerance is equally bad.

This is also the government's line. There is no racism that is better or worse than any other. There is no room whatsoever for acceptance of any form of racism, regardless of whether it is directed at Jews, Muslims, Roma, or any other group that is subjected to hate and threats in our society today.

What has happened over the past year is that the situation regarding vulnerable groups – racism, antisemitism – has become incredibly much worse. For almost exactly one year ago, we saw on Swedish streets how people celebrated the massacre in Israel. During the year, we have heard Jews state that they no longer dare to openly show their Stars of David. Jewish schoolchildren are subjected to horrific harassment. Security arrangements have been needed. I participated myself in the Jewish New Year celebration last week, and it is completely incredible what security arrangements are now required for Jews to be able to celebrate the New Year in Sweden.

This antisemitism has a particular character because it comes from several different sides. It comes from the right-wing extremism and the left-wing extremism, and it also comes from the part of the population that links this to the conflict in the Middle East - it is that part we have seen flare up now.

What has happened is unfortunately not only that the vulnerability of Jews has increased, but also that polarization in general has increased. We see how people of Middle Eastern origin stand on the streets and express extremely antisemitic views. This affects people from the Middle East generally because many are now attaching antisemitic labels to the entire population from the Middle East. That group is therefore also, in itself, vulnerable through the situation we have.

This makes the work against both antisemitism and other forms of racism more urgent than ever. I am therefore very pleased that the government is now working intensively on the action plan, which I will actually mention in the debate because it is what the government is working on very concretely right now. It will target all forms of racism and point out specific measures, among other things, when it comes to antisemitism and also racism against Muslims.

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

Märta Stenevi (MP)

Madam Speaker! I thank the Minister once again for the answer and for the strong commitment against antisemitism that she expresses. It is still commendable in every way, and I appreciate it very much.

But if the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the government take Islamophobia, Afrophobia, racism against Roma, and racism against Sámi as seriously as antisemitism, how is that noticeable? How does the Minister for Foreign Affairs, for example, react to Brå's 2021 report on how Islamophobia meets Swedish Muslims in all parts of society and from all social groups? How does the Minister for Equality react to women testifying about the low-intensity and constant harassment they face in the form of veil-pulling, shoving, and mockery when they move about outside? How does she react to that women would rather stay home than go out into town for fear of these harassments, or to that men are forced to change their names to get a job?

How does the Minister react to the fact that black Swedes, Afro-Swedes, but also black ethnic Swedes, are met with hate and bullying in school and hate and assaults in public because of their skin color? How does she react to the double racism that Muslim black women face in the labor market or to the fact that Swedes with a background in Africa have lower wages and poorer opportunities in the labor market than Swedes with the same educational background?

How does the Minister react to the violent racism that the Sámi face when their livelihood and cultural heritage are literally murdered by reindeer being slaughtered as harassment, or when Swedish commentators can openly snort when the Sámi's historical vulnerability is mentioned? How does she react to the testimonies that Sámi avoid wearing Sámi clothes and symbols out of fear of being subjected to open racism?

And how does the Minister react to the extreme vulnerability that affects Roma and to how racism also prevents women exposed to violence from leaving destructive relationships because they cannot trust a society that constantly suspects and hates?

I have followed the government's communication over the past year - the horrific year since Hamas's terror attack where, just as the Minister said, 1,200 people were massacred in Israel. I have noted that the Minister has not at a single occasion mentioned the 40,000 Palestinians who have been murdered as a massacre, but instead spoke of it as a humanitarian catastrophe. But it is not a natural disaster.

If one constantly uses this rhetoric and makes this distinction in words, how are Swedish Palestinians to perceive that their lives are worth as much to the government as others? How are they to know that the government thinks it is equally serious when the government cannot even mention their murdered relatives in the way they deserve, i.e., that they have been murdered? They have been murdered – they have not accidentally died. It is not a humanitarian catastrophe that just happens. They are murdered.

Madam Speaker! Words matter. What we say and what we do not say matters. For Swedish Jews, the government's support and visibility have been incredibly important and incredibly valuable. But for Swedish-Palestinians, for Black Swedes, for the Sámi, and for all those affected by racism in Sweden, the silence echoes.

Madam Speaker! Paulina Brandberg has rightly been clear in her criticism against, for example, members of the Left Party who have expressed themselves in an antisemitic manner. But can the Minister here and now take an equally clear stand against the Sweden Democrats' Islamophobia, for example expressed through the dissemination of Islamophobic images? And if not: How can anyone trust that the government takes the equal value and rights of all people seriously?

(Applause)

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

Ola Möller (S)

Madam Speaker! I can answer Member Stenevi about what the Liberals thought when pagers were blown up in Lebanon, where healthcare personnel and children were killed and international customary law was violated in section 70. At that time, a Liberal Member of Parliament retweeted a tweet with a pager that said "shalom," which hailed this violation of international law. That the Liberals make a difference in how they assess different things, which Member Stenevi points out, is quite clear.

I want to be clear. I think it is very good and extremely important that the government works against antisemitism. It cannot be emphasized enough how important this work is, just like the work to counter Islamophobia, Afrophobia, Antiziganism, racism against Sámi, and all other forms of racism. All racism shall be fought and countered, always and everywhere. Let there be no doubt about that!

We didn't really get an answer here. The Minister and I apparently interpret the word "yes" a bit differently here. But this makes me think, quite unprompted, of the former Member of Parliament Carl B Hamilton. Hamilton stated that racist remarks against Muslims could be accepted, in connection with the chairman of the Justice Committee making racist remarks, but that the line was drawn at Jews. If the remark had concerned Jews in a similar way, it would have crossed the red line. Hamilton later had to leave the Riksdag.

It is also pointed out that different groups are being subjected to racism on streets and squares. The chairman of the Justice Committee consistently spews Islamophobia to such an extent that it has even led to a preliminary investigation.

The Liberal Party leader Johan Pehrson said in connection with Hamilton: "The criticism is completely justified. He has also apologized. This went very wrong. We make no distinction in respect for people who have different religions. All people with a faith shall be met with respect." I think it is a good statement by Pehrson, and Hamilton left the Riksdag. The question is whether he said what is actually said within the Liberals, given the tweet when international law was broken, or if Pehrson actually meant what he said.

Somewhere, the relationship to the Prime Minister raises a question. Hamilton was forced to leave the Riksdag when he distinguished between racism and racism. But the Prime Minister sends his minister here to defend him and sits calmly remaining.

This raises the question - and here I want the Minister to elaborate on the answer: What is it that distinguishes Member Hamilton's statement, where he distinguished between racism against Jews and racism against Muslims, and the Prime Minister's answer, where he answers "yes" to the question of whether one type of racism is worse than the other? Here I think it actually requires a clear explanation. What is the difference? What is the substance and the core of the fact that the Minister's party colleague had to leave the Riksdag while the Prime Minister calmly remains?

(Applause)

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

Statsrådet Paulina Brandberg (L)

Madam Speaker! I thought I would start by repeating what I said in my previous contribution, in case there is still any doubt: All racism, regardless of whom it is directed against, is equally bad. The Government does not rank any form of racism as better than any other.

The Prime Minister has clarified in the weekend's party leadership debate what he meant by his post. I will not review his post any further than that.

I also want to be clear that there is no person who in any way has a free pass when it comes to spreading hate against other groups. Regardless of who spreads antisemitism, racism, or defamatory images, it is just as bad, regardless of where it comes from. No one has a free pass. When it comes from politicians, it is even worse. Therefore, it is very important that we politicians always think through how we behave and communicate so that people do not take offense or perceive it as that politicians do not see everyone's equal value. This applies within the government base, but it also applies within the opposition's government base.

I am curious about how the Social Democrats and the Green Party view the antisemitism spewed by left-wing party representatives. People stand at demonstrations and say that it is in Jews' genes to kill. Every day, time and again, we see scandals regarding antisemitism coming from the left side but which for some reason do not seem to be as bad as if it came from the right side. I would like to get an answer to that question both from the Social Democrats and from the Green Party. How do you view joining a government that is dependent on the Left Party or where the Left Party is included? How should that antisemitism be handled, and how well does it rhyme with the values that you work towards in your parties?

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

Märta Stenevi (MP)

Madam Speaker! First and foremost: I have no problem distancing myself from all types of antisemitic statements, regardless of who makes them. I have expressed this for many years and in many different contexts. The question is rather: Can the government distance itself from what the chairman of the Justice Committee is spreading?

Madam Speaker! Racism in Sweden is widespread. It is deeply rooted. It is not an imported problem. It is not a new problem. It is a multi-headed hydra that takes different forms depending on who it is targeting. Racism occurs in all social classes, in all ages, and in all parts of our country. If one is to speak of overrepresentation, it is in that case an overrepresentation of men.

When the Prime Minister renders so many of those affected by racism in our country invisible, it is deeply concerning. That the Minister continues to do the same in this debate concerns me even more, because the government has to safeguard everyone's equal value. If one cannot even manage to assess 40,000 murdered relatives of Swedish citizens who were just murdered, how then can those citizens believe that the government views their lives in the same way as others?

If one has a Minister for Equality who does not want to address the fact that we have women in Sweden who cannot go into town because they choose to exercise their freedom of religion, I wonder: How should we view that? Is their freedom not worth just as much?

A fundamental liberal value is everyone's equal worth. But when one reads the government's posts, comments, and debate articles, it is difficult to shake off a rather frightening feeling - that in the government's eyes, some human lives are worth less than others.

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

Ola Möller (S)

Madam Speaker! It is bold of the Minister to invite us to dance around what a potential government base says when one has Björn Söder calling pride marches pedophilia, when one has troll factories sharing white power content, when one has connections to motorcycle gangs, and when one has the chairman of the Justice Committee, who was retweeted by his parliamentary colleagues and ended up under investigation for hate speech against a group.

But I gladly take, often and much distance from all antisemitism, wherever it shows its ugly face. Those who show it, regardless of whether they are Vänsterpartister or Sossar, can go to hell, straight up and down. That is the only thing I have to say on that question.

But there are hundreds of thousands of people in our country who are offended that the Prime Minister, in the interview in DN, ranked racism. Now the Minister says that he had to explain this afterwards and clarify it in the party leader debate. He therefore made a mistake. That is what the Minister stands here and says. All racism is equally bad, but that is not what the Prime Minister said.

Since the Minister is now here to sign on behalf of the Prime Minister, because he is so cowardly that he does not dare to come here himself, I wonder: Can Paulina Brandberg apologize to all those hundreds of thousands of people in our country who felt attacked, singled out, mocked, and belittled by the Prime Minister's blunt answer to the question of whether one form of racism is worse than the racism against them? He said yes, with a subordinate clause. Can the Minister apologize to all these people, or shall they continue to feel that they cannot get it from Sweden's government?

In this speech, Lawen Redar (S) agreed.

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

Statsrådet Paulina Brandberg (L)

Madam Speaker! Ola Möller thinks it is brave to invite someone to dance when it comes to the government's support. I might think it is perhaps a bit bold when this comes from a member of a party that had a member who participated in a Hamas conference and who was allowed to remain in the Social Democrats despite it having been uncovered. It was only when a new scandal emerged about having interfered in an individual migration case that this member became a political pariah.

I strongly dislike whataboutism, but I think this is a gut-feeling statement from the member.

I have repeated several times in this debate that there is no ranking between different forms of racism. What matters, of course, is what the government does. The action plan that the government is now working to develop will in a clear way direct measures against all forms of racism but especially towards certain groups that require specific measures. Jews are one such group. But we also see other groups that the government directs specific measures towards, including Muslims and Afro-Swedes.

I mean that this action plan, with all the desired clarity, will show that the government takes all forms of racism seriously and is working on a broad front so that everyone feels safe in our country, including, of course, those women who feel vulnerable because they are met with hatred due to their Muslim affiliation.

With this, I want to say: Thank you for the debate!

The interpellation debate was hereby concluded.

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