Terrorism

Anna Wallentheim (S)

Madam Speaker! As recently as last week, we in the Committee on Justice had a debate on the government's bill A special penal provision for participation in a terrorist organization. Many of us who are participating in this debate also participated during the debate last week. Much of what is said today risks becoming a bit of "cake on cake" because many focused on talking about terrorism in general already then, but it is of course just as important to highlight terrorism today as it was last week. I will therefore, during this debate, repeat some of what I said last week, but I will also try to highlight additional parts that did not fit into the debate last week but which are at least equally important.

Madam Speaker! Just as I mentioned last week, a number of terrorist attacks are carried out every year all around the world. The threat from terrorism is a threat to the entire open society. Terrorist crimes, in fact, target more than just the individual crime victim. These attacks are carried out by individuals who, for various reasons, believe they have the right to use violence to change or destabilize a society.

For us politicians in the Swedish Riksdag, our task can therefore not only be about prosecuting these acts and individuals, but we must, of course, have as a starting point to combat, prevent, and preclude terrorism. These horrific attacks are crimes that have extreme consequences affecting innocent people. But terrorism fundamentally aims primarily to harm a state, to instill fear in the population, or to undermine a democracy.

It is of course difficult to speak about the subject without thinking of the horrific attacks in Oslo and on Utøya, in Paris or the extreme terrorist attack on Drottninggatan. These are attacks that I believe most of us remember. We remember when they happened and what we did. It is important that we do not forget because terrorism is fundamentally one of the most serious crimes against our democracy.

Madam Speaker! We Social Democrats are aware that in order to meet the threat that terrorism and extremism pose, and to counter its attractions, intensive work is required both nationally and internationally. But this work must be directed towards the root causes of terrorism in order to be able to combat them in the long run. Preventive measures are therefore required to reduce radicalization and recruitment to violent extremist and terrorist groups. But this is no easy task.

On the Security Service's website, it is stated that both the threat landscape and the violence-oriented extremist environments are complex. The reason is considered to be that in extremist environments, there is no direct connection or clear direction. There are individuals, groups, networks, and organizations with different motives and different reasons for their actions. It is a fragmented picture of terrorism, and therefore there is no simple and uniform solution. We must therefore be present on many fronts in both the preventive work and the legislative work. A problem that further complicates the work is that today, activity within these environments often takes place over the internet, regardless of whether it concerns recruitment, radicalization, community, or motives.

Madam Speaker! From the Security Service, research, and several teachers, I have in recent months received worrying signals that the proportion of young boys moving among far-right circles and other extremist circles online is increasing. Young boys and men choose to openly spread hate against people with a different background. It is young boys and men who express hate against Islam, hate against feminism, hate against political parties, hate against political representatives, and hate against our democracy. It is unfortunately also young boys and men who openly celebrate the extremely high numbers of school shootings in the USA. In forums online, they urge and inspire similar acts around Europe and in Sweden.

The recent acts of violence with links to far-right environments, such as the school incidents in Eslöv and Kristianstad and the act of violence in Visby, have made the issue even more topical. This led to the Social Democratic-led government presenting further measures to combat violence-promoting extremism as part of the work against terrorism. Among other things, we have seen that a review needs to be made of the legislation governing Säpo's data and information management. The purpose is to facilitate for the authority to detect threats and radicalization online.

Madam Speaker! The majority of attacks over recent years have been planned and carried out by lone individuals. These perpetrators have generally been inspired by violent extremist ideologies, violent propaganda, and previously carried out attacks. The Swedish Security Service also notes that many of these lone perpetrators are young, sometimes minors. Even though these are individuals acting on their own, they can belong to a perceived community, and that is something that happens online. As I have mentioned, we know that violent extremism and calls to commit attacks are spread in digital forums. Furthermore, there are instructions on how an attack can occur and be carried out. This is a radicalization process that can happen quickly, and it can go fast from thought to action.

Assessing the intent and ability to commit an attack or other serious crime in a lone actor is a difficult challenge. It requires both increased knowledge and increased cooperation between a number of authorities and social functions, such as law enforcement agencies, school, healthcare, and social services.

In this work, CVE (Countering Violent Extremism) also plays an important role. They are, in fact, responsible for developing the preventive work at national, regional, and local levels. CVE works, among other things, with developing methodological support and ensuring that cooperation between the municipalities takes place, and they have a support line for professionals and a mobile support team. In times when extremism increases, CVE's work becomes even more urgent.

On CVE's website, there is now also a very exciting knowledge package about men, masculinity, and violent extremism. We all know in here that the overwhelming majority, as much as between 75 and 90 percent of all those who operate in extremist environments, are men. But despite that, this fact is rarely taken into account when one studies or researches violent extremism.

Despite great ideological differences, similar ideas about men and masculinity prevail within most of the violent extremist environments. Often, the differences that exist between men and women are emphasized, and violence is often used to convey one's message. Research also shows that young men join these environments not only for ideological reasons but also to prove their masculinity.

Violence-promoting extremist groups also often include antifeminism in their ideologies. Feminism is considered by these groups and environments to have gained far too much influence in society, which threatens the traditional, heterosexual family and undermines the man's right to decide.

The research overview also highlights that there is an overlap between men's violence against women in close relationships from an individual perspective and a structural societal problem that extends to violent extremism.

The work against men's violence against women must therefore receive higher status in several aspects. 2023 is a dark year when it comes to men's violence against women. We already see in May that more women have been murdered than we usually see during a year. This must, of course, be stopped.

Madam Speaker! For us Social Democrats, it is important that the work we began continues. We also see that this government continues that work, and we are following this with great interest.

In today's report, there are several motions that highlight important proposals. They are important proposals, but as I said, we consider the work we began to be important. Today, we choose to stand behind the committee's proposal and have no own reservations.

We will keep a watchful eye on the continued work. The government's focus must not only be to study violent Islamism, because as I said, the far-right extremism is just as dangerous.

(Applause)

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

Adam Marttinen (SD)

Madam Speaker! For far too long we have had governments in our country that have lied to the Swedish people straight to their faces. They have claimed that the mass immigration to our country is something natural and enriching and something that cannot be stopped.

Madam Speaker! The Swedish Security Service identifies three main groupings of violent extremism in our country, where violence and terror are considered legitimate methods to influence society. These are right-wing and left-wing extremist groupings, which over time have had a relatively equal scope, even though the right-wing extremist environment is currently somewhat more active than the left-wing extremist one.

But the environment that has increased exponentially in our country since a couple of decades ago is the violence-oriented Islamist environment. According to the Security Service's reports over the years, it has been identified as so extensive that it has become larger than both the left-wing and the right-wing extremist environments combined. The Security Service has also established that the growth within this environment is linked to the heavy and uncontrolled immigration that previous governments have promoted.

Violent Islamism is not something natural in Sweden or something that enriches Sweden. Violent Islamism can be stopped.

That is precisely why, Madam Speaker, it is so necessary that the government's immigration policy is based on the Sweden Democrats' ideas rather than the Social Democrats'. It is time to close the border to everyone who can be thought to constitute a threat to our country. It is time to stop public funds that stimulate segregation and promote Islamism. It is time that we identify the foreign terror threats and deport persons who constitute a terror threat from our country once and for all. If they risk harsh treatment in their countries of origin, this must not be guiding for letting them stay in our country. Foreign persons who constitute terror threats shall be deported, period.

Madam Speaker! We are debating the Committee on Justice's report on terrorism, which deals with motions related to the area of terrorism that have been submitted during the general motion period.

The Tidö parties have in the Tidö Agreement some points that regulate certain important issues. It concerns the Act on Special Immigration Control, which we have debated previously. We have provisions that we shall, of course, carry out more deportations but also investigate the detention period in order to be able to keep persons who pose a security threat locked up rather than releasing them, where there are obstacles to deportation.

We also have a point with proposals on the citizenship issue, namely that which the Sverigedemokraterna first raised here in the Swedish Riksdag: to be able to strip persons who pose a threat to our country and who also have a foreign citizenship of their Swedish citizenship. This is something that the Social Democratic government refused to even touch. But for the Sverigedemokraterna, it is a self-evident matter that foreign citizens who also have a Swedish citizenship and who pose a terror threat to our country should not be allowed to keep their Swedish citizenship. And they should absolutely not walk freely on our streets. There is a crystal-clear dividing line between the previous government's policy in this area and this government's policy, which is based on the Sverigedemokraterna's ideas.

We also have a part in the Tidö Agreement concerning the funding of religious communities and organizations in the civil society area. We want to review the possibility of stopping funding that promotes precisely Islamism and extremism, something that has occurred for far too long and affected the opportunities for the Islamist circles and the separatists in our country to broaden their activities and spread their insane ideas, which do not belong in our country at all.

In addition to the Tidö Agreement, the Sweden Democrats also have motions in the area of terrorism. We want, among other things, to make it easier for the Swedish Security Service to map out the security threats in Sweden. Different parts of their work still need to be sharpened.

We also have proposals regarding an expansion of the ban on participation in violent organizations. We believe that the systematic nature of violence and threats occurring in several places, not only from the three mentioned large categories of violent extremism, must also be taken seriously. This could involve, for example, animal rights activism or racist organizations that, in a systematic way, through actions in relatively mild crime categories, pose a greater threat to various industries, businesses, and people. We know that animal rights activists, among other things, engage in harassing and influencing hunters and target farms and animal breeders in a way that is a threat to the system. This must also be included in the penal code so that it is shown that it is taken more seriously.

We also mean that the legislation regarding terror propaganda must be reviewed. Public incitements to terrorism must be able to be criminalized, as well as the dissemination of terror propaganda. We know that what we do not stop today risks becoming the great threat in the future. Immigration policy is a clear example of how such a development can occur in our country. Incitement to terrorism and dissemination of terrorist material must be able to be criminalized to a greater extent.

There are also states and state actors operating in a way that constitutes threats to our country. This can constitute threats to individual persons or threats aimed at influencing Sweden and Sweden's political decisions in order to destabilize our country. Right now we see that Russia, of course, and also Iran and China in different ways are operating against Sweden to influence our country or citizens or other persons in our country. We need to have a sharpening when it comes to the possibility of deporting those persons who operate for these countries' intelligence services. We must have a greater ability to secure our country from these countries' threats.

Madam Speaker! There is much to say about terrorism. We have debated this for very many years. Under the previous government, there was very little action.

Unfortunately, we see that the threat levels in our country remain high. Unfortunately, we know that the 300 individuals who traveled to Syria and Iraq to participate in the construction of the terror state and then returned to Sweden have rarely faced criminal liability. Most go completely free. None of them risk losing their citizenship. None of them risk being deported from our country. This is something that the Social Democratic government is leaving behind as a legacy. It is also something that the Sweden Democrats will work to influence moving forward.

We naturally stand behind all our reservations, but for the sake of time, I move for approval only of reservation 6, regarding the ban on participation in violence-promoting organizations. There, we need to see a new approach. We see more criminal actors engaging in what we consider to be terror-like activities, and they must be able to face a greater criminal liability. Therefore, I move for approval of that reservation.

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

Anna Wallentheim (S)

Madam Speaker! I usually request a reply as rarely as possible, because it means that the opposing debater is given the opportunity for a closing statement. But sometimes things are said that make one simply have to stand up and unburden one's heart.

Member of Parliament Marttinen seems to call all immigrants in our country a major problem who risk committing acts of terrorism and other types of extreme acts of violence.

I just want to point out to all the members in this chamber and all the listeners that most people with an immigrant background in our country work. They ensure that people in this country get to and from work every day. They ensure that our healthcare works. They ensure that our elderly care works. They ensure that we have places to go and eat lunch. They start companies. They study the development. They ensure that Sweden works.

I must point this out. That is why I requested a reply here.

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

Adam Marttinen (SD)

Madam Speaker! There is absolutely no contradiction between what Member Wallentheim says and what I said in my speech.

The problem has been what the Security Service has pointed out, which I also raised in my speech, namely that Swedish immigration policy and the laxity we have had – the uncontrolled mass immigration we have had – has been exploited by extreme groups with extreme ideas. They have seen an opportunity to enter Sweden. They have been able to obtain permanent residence permits by simple means. They have been able to obtain Swedish citizenship by simple means and, from this, been able to strengthen their position when it comes to acting for terrorism or spreading extreme ideas. We must emphasize this laxity in every debate where we talk about how we can prevent large-scale terrorist attacks in the future.

One must obviously see what it is that has influenced these environments. 20 years ago, we did not have even remotely as large an environment within the violence-oriented Islamism in Sweden. It has grown explosively over the last 20 years. That is because we have had an uncontrolled immigration to our country that the Social Democrats have stood behind, promoted, and called enriching.

Unfortunately, the lack of control has led to the fact that we today have the largest grouping within the violence-seeking Islamist environment. It has grown due to your immigration policy. This must be pointed out, while at the same time one must obviously have respect for the fact that not all people living in our country are extremists. No one has claimed that.

But the reason why this has grown so explosively is that we have had an irresponsible immigration policy where the Social Democrats have welcomed very many extremists to come here and establish themselves. So that is how reality looks.

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

Anna Wallentheim (S)

Madam Speaker! Yes, immigration has enriched our country. There are so many workplaces that function thanks to the fact that we have immigration. I have a father and a sister who work in healthcare and who tell me daily that it would never have worked there if one did not have people with other backgrounds.

We also see that it is incredibly problematic with the extremism that prevails, whether it concerns Islamism or right-wing extremism. I, who work within the school world, see it as incredibly unfortunate with the acts of violence we have had in schools. They have had connections to right-wing extremist environments rather than to the other part.

I just want to mention the fact that the immigration policy we have had is something that has benefited Sweden. But incredibly many people came. We have talked about this in many different debates and in different committees. We also had to tighten this.

It is, however, problematic that Adam Marttinen and other members from Sverigedemokraterna in other debates speak passionately about the need to build walls. We could hear this as recently as last week. It was spoken about how they had been in Poland and studied how quickly and well the high walls had been built there, and this was something they suggested Sweden should look at.

I think such rhetoric is problematic. Sweden should not be a country that builds walls. Sweden should be a country where we take care of everyone. There, the Sweden Democrats stand for a completely different policy, where people are divided and viewed differently. The Sweden Democrats choose to support the school market we have today, which segregates our children. They choose to segregate people in the labor market and so on. I see that as more problematic.

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

Adam Marttinen (SD)

Madam Speaker! I know that there is a huge difference between the Sweden Democrats' and the Social Democrats' view of what kind of country Sweden should be, what conditions we should have when it comes to managing border controls, and what should apply for Swedish citizenship. It is crystal clear.

There are today a huge number of Swedish citizens who should never have become such, according to the Sweden Democrats' view. Among others, there are 300 of them who have traveled to Syria and Iraq and participated in slaughtering people, women, and children. They have burned people in steel cages as a form of terrorist assault to take over territories. The Sweden Democrats would never have wanted to welcome them as citizens from the very beginning, but the Social Democrats have welcomed them as Swedish citizens and flown them home to Sweden from conflict and worry areas, and one continues to provide for them with Swedish taxpayers' money.

There are huge differences between our two parties.

"My Europe builds no walls" a Social Democratic Prime Minister once said. Here we could once again hear that we shall have no walls, that is to say we shall have open borders. The conditions for entering Sweden shall continue to be favorable for terrorists, according to the Social Democrats. We do not think so. We want to prevent every individual who risks posing a threat from entering Sweden.

One of the best crime-preventive measures is to have control over the terrorists' movement patterns and attempts to establish themselves in Sweden, especially when we see that the violent Islamist environment has been the fastest growing and today consists of several thousand individuals who have both the will and the ability to commit terrorist crimes.

Speaking of job opportunities, I can say that unfortunately, very many job opportunities have been created within the police and the Security Service to keep track of the individuals that the Social Democrats have let in.

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

Mikael Damsgaard (M)

Madam Speaker! Terrorism has throughout history manifested in many different forms. The concept of terrorism has its origin in the Reign of Terror during the French Revolution. Terrorism has been practiced with many different purposes and many different methods - ranging from aircraft hijackings to lone actors who, with firearms or vehicles, kill civilians indiscriminately.

During the 1970s and 1980s, organizations such as the IRA in the United Kingdom and ETA in Spain were responsible for a large number of attacks. In more recent times, a large number of attacks have been carried out in Europe and globally by groups or individuals with links to violent Islamism. We have also experienced a number of serious attacks committed with motives linked to violent far-right extremism.

Common to all forms of terrorism is the systematic and ruthless use of violence in order to thereby instill fear and attempt to force political changes. The violence often hits people randomly because they happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. The heterogeneous threat landscape, which changes over time, requires that we have strong legislation that can meet different types of threats over time.

According to Section 4 of the Terrorist Crime Act, a person who commits or attempts to commit an intentional crime may be convicted of a terrorist crime if the act can seriously harm a country or an intergovernmental organization and if the act is committed with the intent to instill serious fear in a population or a part of a population, to unduly compel a public body or an intergovernmental organization to take or refrain from taking an action, or to seriously destabilize or destroy fundamental political, constitutional, economic, or social structures in a country or in an intergovernmental organization.

Madam Speaker! Today we are debating the Committee on Justice's report on terrorism, where a number of motions from the general motion period are being addressed. In the report, the committee proposes that the Riksdag decides to reject all motions. This is not because all proposals are bad – on the contrary – but because they are primarily included in ongoing investigation or preparatory work.

Sweden has extensive legislation regarding terrorist crimes. On July 1 last year, the new terrorist crime law entered into force. It consolidated the legislation against terrorism from several laws that had been added at different times. At the same time, the new law on special control of certain foreigners entered into force, which increased the possibility of holding persons who pose a threat to Sweden's security in detention and under supervision. We Moderates welcomed the new laws but simultaneously noted that several problems remained unsolved, as well as that the sentencing scales for several crimes were too mild.

As late as last week, we here in the chamber decided on a ban on participation in terrorist organizations. It is an important piece of legislation that will strengthen Sweden's work against terrorism. The new penal provision on participation in terrorist organizations enters into force on June 1.

Shortly, the Riksdag will also decide on the government's bill Efficient measures against the spread of terrorist content online. This bill has been submitted to adapt Swedish legislation to a new EU regulation on measures against the spread of terrorist content online. The regulation gives the national competent authorities certain powers and imposes certain obligations on so-called hosting service providers. Among other things, the competent authority may issue orders for a hosting service provider to remove terrorist content from its hosting service. This is an example of how we also in Europe, within the framework of the European Union, work together to combat terrorism.

The work against terrorism is both about having powerful legislation in place to be able to prevent, deter, and prosecute terrorist crime and about different forms of softer - or social - preventive measures.

The previous government decided in 2015 on a national strategy against terrorism. The strategy is the starting point for Sweden's long-term work against terrorism both nationally and internationally. An important part of the strategy is to counter radicalization and recruitment to extremist and terrorist groups. The government is now working on developing a new national strategy against violent extremism and terrorism in order to further sharpen and strengthen that work.

The sharpened security situation, the increased threat profile against Sweden - including from violent Islamism - and new legislation mean that it is important to ensure that the Swedish Security Service has sufficient financial resources for its mission. Therefore, the government added 165 million kronor to strengthen the Security Service's capacity in the budget bill for 2023 and an additional 50 million in the spring budget presented this week.

With this, I conclude by moving for the approval of the proposal in the committee report.

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

Gudrun Nordborg (V)

Madam Speaker! I begin by moving for approval of reservation 3, which Vänsterpartiet and Miljöpartiet support and which concerns a national dropout program.

This is something that could work well as a preventive measure and which also, based on the experiences one can gain from those who drop out, could contribute to our understanding of the mechanisms behind why people join terrorist ideologies or terrorist organizations. It can also be about other organized crime. We can gain increased knowledge, and we could get ambassadors. Those who have gone through such programs are, in some cases, incredibly important in contributing insights about the processes that lead into this cruel activity.

It is not possible to question that there is no one who does not think that terrorism is something absolutely terrible that we should do everything we can to prevent. The question is: What do we do then?

If we look at the harvest of motions in this matter, we see that there are a few motions dealing with what could be preventive, for example, increased resources to Center against violent extremism, more cooperation with international organizations and cooperation within the EU. Otherwise, it is a series of repressive proposals. One should punish more, punish again, widen the possible area for punishment and criminalize even more.

Then the question arises: What kind of society do we want? We want to move away from terrorism and violence, but what do we know about what can lead to that?

We know that the vast majority of those who commit violent crimes are men. We know that many do so to strengthen their sense of masculinity and cultivate a macho culture that involves contempt and sometimes open hatred and violence against women and against weaker men. We must handle this in a completely different way than solely with the tool of criminalization. We must build society from the ground up, handle these issues of power and gender in preschool and in school, and problematize it in a completely different way than what we have succeeded with so far. Then we will be able to reduce both the number of murders and attacks as well as the number of children who grow up seeing violence as a means of power.

I say this time and again because these are such central issues. It has been said here in the speaker's chair earlier today that for some reason we turn a blind eye to the fact that it is men who commit these crimes. We are gender-blind. This must stop, and we can get help with this in many different ways.

I want to highlight that, thank goodness, there is cooperation today where people are trying to handle issues.

When it comes to Center mot våldsbejakande extremism, I want to particularly emphasize that their activities are explicitly and demonstrably based on research and proven experience, and that they constantly work towards a knowledge-based practice. They do this at different levels – at the national level but also at the local and regional level. They constitute a resource for many officials and volunteers, and above all, they act preventatively and handle issues in an effective way in that regard. As was mentioned here earlier, they have noted the most destructive side of masculinity and the violence that it can lead to.

What is needed additionally is that we strengthen different parts of the preventive work. There, a national dropout prevention activity has been requested many times. Today, it is somewhat ad hoc in terms of how it functions, even though there is some coordination via national agencies, where the Swedish Police Authority has the responsibility to develop something. But I think the development time and again occurs in a fragmented way, where different bodies are to handle similar issues.

I believe it is high time that we really try to focus properly, and there the defection activities can play an important role. At the same time, as I also pointed out, a basic social justice is needed, which must be complemented by the program to facilitate defections from different extreme environments.

I move for approval of reservation number 3.

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

Torsten Elofsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! The developments in our global environment mean that the threat to Sweden and the democratic system is extensive.

The traditional threat of attacks from violent Islamist extremism and violent right-wing extremism persists and increases in some parts, while the broader threat to democracy becomes increasingly prominent. Violent extremists also carry out subversive activities in the form of infiltration and influence to increase the division in our society.

Both violence-seeking extremists and foreign powers work to destabilize society. At the same time, there is an elevated threat of attacks. The deteriorating security situation in the world affects the actors within violence-seeking extremism that the Swedish Security Service (Säkerhetspolisen) monitors.

The threat of terrorism is global and targets all democracies. No one is truly safe. We too have been affected, and I will mention a few examples.

The horrific event on Drottninggatan, which was mentioned here earlier, is in fresh memory. In 2010, the suicide bomber Taimour Abdulwahab died when he accidentally triggered the explosive charge on his body on Bryggargatan here in Stockholm. The attacks against Lars Vilks are not to be forgotten. His crime was that he made a caricature of the prophet Muhammad as a poodle, and for that, he had to pay the price.

We also have persons residing in Sweden who have participated in terrorist crimes on the continent, of which Osama Krayem is perhaps the best known. Krayem was one of the main actors behind the acts of violence at the airport and in the metro in Brussels, where a large number of people died and were injured. Krayem was born in my hometown Malmö and grew up in the district Rosengård.

At the moment, four people are detained on probable grounds suspected of incitement to terrorism. The youngest is 15 years old, and Säpo has noted that there is an increasing radicalization among young people, as previous speakers mentioned.

Madam Speaker! We also have certain events in the recent past that have palpably increased the threats against our country. The Quran burning is an example that has caused strong emotions and which very well can trigger and even has triggered people. The threat is there, and Paludan's provocation is far from forgotten within certain groupings.

The same applies to the attacks on the social services, which are accused of kidnapping Muslim children with the support of the Act concerning Certainium of Care for Young Persons, LVU. Even if it does not trigger acts of violence, it is a subversive activity aimed at influencing and increasing the division in our society, and it cannot be ruled out that individuals or groups resort to violence against that background.

Madam Speaker! I also want to highlight that there is a clear and worrying link between terrorist groups and organized crime, where the latter largely finances the terrorists' activities. The collective evidence shows that organized crime and violent extremism in general, and violent Islamist extremism in particular, are overlapping and partially intertwined phenomena.

Violence-promoting Islamist extremism and organized crime are linked through recruitment and cooperation. As mentioned earlier, a hundred people from Sweden traveled a few years ago to Syria and Iraq to join IS, or Daish as it is also called, or to al-Qaeda. An unknown number have also joined other militia groups in the region.

It can be observed that many of those who traveled down had a past in the gang criminal groups, connections that still remain. I want to emphasize that we should not underestimate the gang criminal environment's and organized crime's connection to terrorism. They are linked in different ways.

Through their capacity for violence and their ambition to create parallel societies and undermine the democratic system, these forces directly challenge Sweden's internal security. According to the Swedish Security Service, the number of attack threats against Sweden and Swedish interests abroad has increased, where Sweden has come into greater focus for violence-oriented Islamist extremism. The terror threat against Sweden, Madam Speaker, must in other words be regarded as continued high and serious.

The Government, the Christian Democrats and - I am sure - we all here in the chamber take this very seriously. No one should condone terrorism, and we are all in agreement that it is something that must be fought. What we are actually discussing is how this should be done, but there is a great consensus that it must be fought.

The shortcomings in our terror legislation were revealed in 2014-2015 when IS or Daish were at their worst in Syria and Iraq. New legislation is in place, but we need to strengthen and complement it. This work is ongoing.

We also need to strengthen the capacity to prevent, deter and hinder crime. As mentioned, the government has allocated increased funds to the Swedish Security Service in the 2023 budget and has allocated an additional 50 million in the supplementary budget.

The Center against Violence-Oriented Extremism, which has also been mentioned here, has an incredibly important role when it comes to preventing and hindering radicalization and constitutes a valuable support to municipalities and regions through its preventive work. I want to highlight the important work that they do.

It has also been mentioned here earlier that there are decisions regarding the criminalization of participation in terrorist organizations.

Countering terrorist content online is important. There lies a proposal. The idea is that we should be able to stop radicalization via the internet, prevent live-streamed terrorist attacks, and delete posts that contribute to the planning of attacks.

I want to highlight efforts against money laundering, which is an important part of preventing and hindering terrorists. As I mentioned earlier, much of the terrorism is financed through other crimes, and the funds are channeled to these groups.

Last but not least, I want to highlight the importance of international cooperation. We have a good cooperation within the framework of Europol, which has a key role in the fight against terrorism. That work must be strengthened, and I believe it is important that we, from Sweden's side, ensure that we get good staffing at Europol so that we can monitor our own national interests there.

Madam Speaker! With that said, I move for the rejection of all motions on terrorism with reference to ongoing investigation and preparatory work.

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

Ulrika Liljeberg (C)

Madam Speaker! There is high economic inflation in our country, yes, in large parts of the world, and it affects many. This needs to be addressed, and measures need to be taken.

I would like to assert that there is also high inflation in the use of the term terrorism. I am aware that the word can be used both as a legal term and as a more general word. But when politicians and other power holders use it too easily and not according to the prevailing definition, there is a risk that our citizens believe that we take the – often quite intrusive – measures that we take against terrorism even against crimes committed for economic gain or for other reasons.

As several previous speakers have said, terrorist crimes differ from other crimes. For the individual who, for example, is hit by a bullet and is injured or dies, the difference is obviously completely insignificant, and it is just as important to prosecute and punish regardless of whether it is a so-called ordinary crime or a terrorist crime.

But we must remember that a terrorist crime according to Swedish law is an act that can seriously harm a state or an intergovernmental organization and whose intent is to instill serious fear in a population or population group, force public bodies or an intergovernmental organization to take or refrain from taking an action, or seriously destabilize or destroy fundamental political, constitutional, economic, or social structures. It is important to remember that difference when discussing the quite intrusive measures that are possible for just terrorist crimes. It is a type of crime that requires special legislation.

The National Centre for Terrorist Threat Assessment, NCT, makes continuous assessments of the level of terrorist threat in Sweden and against Swedish interests abroad. The threat level is assessed today to be at level 3 of 5. Level 3 signifies an elevated threat and that it is assessed that an attack could occur.

It is assessed that the primary threat to Sweden during 2023 will likely come from individuals motivated by a violent far-right extremist ideology or a violent Islamist ideology.

The difference is, therefore, that terrorism threatens our entire democratic society and that the total consequence is so much greater than the individual act.

Madam Speaker! It is against this background that we in the Center Party support the current legislation and the changes that have been made in the recent past, which we have debated previously. But I want to highlight one aspect.

We are entering an election year, as next year is the election to the European Parliament. We in C consider the EU to be an important arena for cooperation and see it as a strength that the fight against terrorism is a top priority for the union. Together, the EU's member states have better conditions to counter terrorist attacks by, for example, sharing intelligence on potentially dangerous persons, stopping arms smuggling, and working against money laundering than the states do individually.

We see the strength in an established and long-term daily work to meet these problems. We see, among other things, the cooperation within the EU's police cooperation Europol as very important to protect us from terror and to safeguard our democracies.

I therefore wish to move for approval of the Centerpartiets only reservation, number 11, which concerns precisely the cooperation within the EU.

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

Juno Blom (L)

Madam Speaker! The goal of all counter-terrorism is to avoid terrorist attacks occurring. The work against terrorism is divided into three areas: prevent, deter, and hinder. Today, I have chosen to focus my attention on the preventive work.

Madam Speaker! Let us never forget those who have fallen victim to terrorism - those children and adults who were murdered on Drottninggatan here in Stockholm on April 7, 2017, and all victims of terror attacks around the world, year after year.

Terrorist crimes are the final step in a radicalization process, and it is a process that is still ongoing every day here in Sweden. The ongoing radicalization is a threat to our democracy. Radicalization is closely linked to the emergence of parallel societies where separatist forces challenge the Swedish legal order.

Radicalization is also linked to the fact that anti-democratic forces influence people's participation in Swedish society and force them to live according to patriarchal, separatist legal orders. Children and young people are indoctrinated to follow ideologies that offer community but also contempt for Swedish society. They systematically attempt to threaten and intimidate Swedish social services from protecting children from unsafe upbringing environments.

If we are to truly prevent, deter and hinder terrorism, a shift in perspective is required. Radicalization must be confronted earlier and more clearly.

Radicalization is not just about terrorism. It is also about values. A part of many radicalization processes involves defending norm systems that run contrary to the individual's right to freedom and equality and the right to love whoever one wants regardless of gender. It is norms and values that permeate Swedish legislation. We need to realize that the democracy, freedom, and equality that we love are values that violence-oriented groups hate and want to destroy by all means.

In the Swedish strategy against terrorism, which the previous government decided on in 2015, it was stated that norms, values, and attitudes that interact and contribute to the emergence of extremism and terrorism must be countered effectively. It is important that there is a gender perspective in the work to prevent violent extremism and terrorism. Furthermore, the importance of interventions that can influence stereotypical norms that link masculinity and violence was stated.

I share the view that norms, values and attitudes that interact and contribute to the emergence of extremism and terrorism must be countered effectively and that measures are required to counter stereotypical gender roles. But when I look through the material that has been prepared to support the work, I find it difficult to find reflections on the norms, values and attitudes that are to be countered effectively.

Despite the fact that Sweden was one of the countries in Europe with the most people who joined the terrorist organization IS, there is still a fear of contact and a reluctance to talk about the norms and values that should be countered. This is despite indications that the threats from the far-right are increasing.

It is difficult to counteract norms and values when guiding material does not mention which norms and values should be counteracted and what purpose and goals the norms and values have. But there are reports where researchers have tried to identify factors.

In a report from the Total Defence Research Institute on the connections and synergies between violent Islamist extremism and honor-related violence and oppression, it is stated that there are significant similarities. The violence and oppression are strongly patriarchal and tradition-bound. Within both of these manifestations, the adherents perceive that their norms, identity, and future are threatened and that violence and coercion are permitted means. To maintain the group's distinctiveness, control is used, and it is stated in the report that girls and women are subjected to this to the greatest extent.

Even in a report from the City of Gothenburg, Honor Culture, Violence-Promoting Islamist Extremism and Gang Crime, connections are identified between honor-related crimes, organized crime, and violence-promoting Islamist extremism, such as the collectivist structure, traditional norms, and gross violence in cases of affronts to maintain honor. Individual freedoms and rights are countered, and democratic societal functions are defied.

One sees traditional gender roles and control of girls and women. The report also highlights that boys and men are shaped by a destructive macho ideal. It also appears that the police's assessment is that for the most part, all adults who have traveled to live where IS fighters have lived have lived with honor norms.

Similar factors appear in a knowledge overview of the white power environment that Center against Violence-Oriented Extremism has produced. Within the white power environment, the white nuclear family is perceived as fundamental. The relationship between women and men is viewed from a conservative perspective where the sexes have distinct prerequisites and life tasks.

The ideal of masculinity assumes an exaggerated, often violence-oriented, male identity. The white race, and specifically the woman, is seen as threatened by the multicultural society and in need of protection. One alludes to the image of a strong masculine warrior who shall protect the white race and the survival of one's own family. Homosexuality is regarded as an internal moral and political threat.

These different reports together paint a tragic picture of that norms and values are relatively similar in the violence-seeking Islamist environment and the white power environment. It is conservative gender roles where women are to be controlled. Heterosexuality is the only sexuality that can be accepted. There is an ideal of violence among men, who are expected to adapt to a destructive macho ideal.

In the power environment, women should be protected from the multicultural society, and when it comes to violence-promoting Islamist groups, women should be protected from Western men – while at the same time women are exposed to men's violence against women and honor-related violence and oppression.

Antisemitism constitutes an additional common denominator for the white power movement and the violence-seeking Islamist extremist environment.

Obtaining knowledge about the norms and values that need to be countered would, for easily understood reasons, facilitate the work of preventing violence to be as effective as possible, but despite the awareness of the need to increase the understanding of which children and young people run the risk of being recruited into violence-oriented extremism and criminal gangs, the fear of talking about norms and values has lain like a grey wool blanket over the politics and responsible authorities. Knowledge is crucial to understand the reason why certain children are recruited while the vast majority of children and young people, regardless of area, are not attracted to either extremism or criminal gangs.

In the strategy, the importance of having a gender perspective in the work to prevent violent extremism and terrorism is highlighted. I also share this position, but it is difficult to find gender research that can contribute to the preventive work. It could truly help us to understand how the different contexts in which recruitment occurs affect the social and cultural construction of gender.

It would be very valuable to find out how the queue is constructed in, for example, Ludvika, which has an active right-wing extremist base, or in the marginalized area of Navestad in Norrköping, where I know the honor culture exists and where there was even stone-throwing against the police during Easter last year - or how the queue is constructed in Södermalm. Can we learn something from the different contexts?

One thing I am convinced of: In order for us to reach children and young people and influence values, norms, and stereotypical gender roles, children and young people must feel that we understand the reality that prevails in their immediate environment. The question remains why there has not been a greater interest in finding more pieces of the puzzle as an explanation for why certain young boys are attracted to extremist and criminal environments. It is crucial for the picture to become clear.

In this work, questions concerning norms and values will be decisive. It is when we want to see and know that we will be able to meet children and young people with relevant interventions. By seeing and understanding more risk factors, we can prevent recruitment to violence-oriented extremist environments.

The government is now working on developing a new national strategy against violence-promoting extremism and terrorism. There is now a government that has clearly signaled the need for a shift in perspective. New legislation is necessary and an important part of the work against extremism and terrorism, but to achieve a change in the long term, the preventive work is crucial. Therefore, we must together free ourselves from the gray wool blanket and intensify and streamline the preventive work – so that Sweden can be a country where everyone feels that they belong and contribute.

Terrorism

I vote in favor of the proposal in the report.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(Decisions were made under § 14.)

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