Terrorism

Mikael Damsgaard (M)

Mr. Speaker! The matter we are now debating is a motion report in which about twenty motions concerning the area of terrorism are addressed. The Committee on Justice proposes in the report that all motions be rejected. The report also contains two reservations.

Mr. Speaker! Sweden's security situation has changed and deteriorated over a longer period. Today we face three main parallel threats to our internal security: terrorism and violent extremism, various state actors acting hostilely towards Sweden, and serious organized crime.

In August, the Swedish Security Service (Säkerhetspolisen) raised the terror threat level from a three to a four on a five-point scale, from elevated to high. The background was the significantly deteriorated security situation and the assessment that the threat will persist for a long period.

Terrorism in modern times has been carried out with many different purposes and with different methods, ranging from airplane hijackings to lone individuals who kill civilians indiscriminately with firearms or vehicles. During the 1970s and 1980s, separatist groups 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 both 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 a violent far-right extremism.

Common to all forms of terrorism is the systematic and ruthless use of violence and destruction to 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.

Mr. Speaker! Sweden shall be characterized by openness, democracy and respect for fundamental human freedoms and rights. People shall be able to move safely and freely, participate in gatherings and express their opinions without fear of being subjected to threats and violence. The work against terrorism is therefore central to protecting our way of life in a free democratic society.

Swedish legislation against terrorism was neglected for a long time, which we Moderates have criticized for many years. In recent years, however, important steps have been taken. After many years of waiting, the new terrorist crime act entered into force in 2022. 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 surveillance. We Moderates welcomed the new laws but noted that several problems remained unsolved, as well as that the sentencing scales for several crimes were too mild. Less than a year ago, participation in a terrorist organization was also criminalized. This means that Sweden now has extensive legislation regarding terrorist crimes, but the work to further strengthen the protection continues.

The threat of terrorism varies, as said, over time in terms of both actors and intensity. Many other countries have lived with high levels of terror threats for a long time, but there, society as a whole has been able to continue functioning as usual. We in Sweden must also manage this, while the work to combat the terror threat continues with undiminished force. The work to protect society against violent extremism and terrorism must therefore be persistent, long-term, and strategic. Having goals and directions in a national strategy has been a success factor in that work.

The first national strategy against terrorism was developed in 2008. The strategy has since been renewed in 2012 and 2015. But since then, the threat from violent extremism and terrorism has become increasingly complex and difficult to combat. There is now a broader threat against Sweden aimed at undermining trust in society and its institutions and, in the long run, weakening our democracy. In connection with Folk och Försvar in Sälen earlier this year, the government therefore presented a new strategy against violent extremism and terrorism.

The work shall be based on four clear strategic areas - it shall prevent violence-promoting extremism and terrorism, prevent terrorist attacks and other ideologically motivated crimes, protect society's people and functions, and finally manage the situation during and after an attack.

Each strategic area contains several concrete measures. It is about schools, social services, and the police strengthening their cooperation and expanding early interventions to reduce radicalization and the recruitment of children into extremist environments. It is about strengthening the work to stop the financing of terrorism, reducing access to weapons, and being able to more quickly detect individuals who pose a security threat in order to prevent attacks. It is about strengthening the protection of critical infrastructure and increasing the possibility of camera surveillance where needed. Finally, it is about conducting joint tactical exercises with personnel from emergency services, the police, and healthcare to improve our ability to handle an attack that could not be prevented. The goal is that the strategy shall contribute to the strength of our entire society being able to be mobilized to effectively combat terrorism and violent extremism.

Finally, the sharpened security situation and the increased threat against Sweden from, among other things, violent Islamism, as well as new legislation, mean that it is important to ensure that the Swedish Security Service has sufficient financial resources for its mission. The Government has therefore allocated significant resources to the Swedish Security Service. Since 2022, the budget has increased by approximately 500 million kronor, which is an increase of 25 percent. The investments will continue moving forward.

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

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

Anna Wallentheim (S)

Mr. Speaker! This is my fourth debate on issues concerning terrorism and extremism in this parliamentary term alone, partly due to motions from the general motion period, and partly due to debates arising from sharp legislative proposals on increased penalties and economic sanctions.

It means, of course, that much has already been said in this chamber, both by me and by others. From both the right wing and the left wing, we have stood here in the speaker's chair and spoken about terrorism as a concept. We have spoken about its historical development. We have spoken about the increasing threats. Much has, therefore, already been said. One could summarize it by saying that terrorism and extremism must always be condemned and that terrorists must receive tangible punishments.

But it is also about prevention. Just as in all my other debates, I want to take the opportunity to talk about how important it is that both terrorism and extremism are prevented. The fact is that no child and no youth is born a terrorist or an extremist. As long as we choose to focus on that, there is always a possibility to prevent a person from becoming a terrorist or an extremist and that terrorist acts are committed.

As recently as yesterday, I had an interpellation debate with the Minister for Justice where I asked how the government is working to prevent school attacks, which are an increasing threat in Sweden. The reason for this is that extremism among our children and young people is increasing and that they move in forums where one both calls for and encourages school attacks. Many of the cases unfortunately have their breeding ground in extremism. When it comes to school attacks in Sweden, they have many times connections to right-wing extremism.

Police and teachers and Center against violence-promoting extremism point out that they are receiving more and more signals from teachers, guardians, social services and others regarding signs that attacks are underway or of increased radicalization of young people. In these conversations with relevant actors in the field, it also emerges that we have an increasing group of young people in our society, mostly boys, who isolate themselves from reality and immerse themselves in dangerous online forums. These are forums where extremism, conspiracy theories and the idea of various forms of school attacks or even terrorist attacks are discussed, planned and cheered on.

During the last few weeks, one has been able to read an article series in Aftonbladet about violent school attacks. There, it is described how some of the young men who have carried out school attacks in Sweden in recent years have been radicalized online and have been driven by individuals who praise violence and extremism in forums such as TikTok and Snapchat. Young guys themselves describe how they have ended up in an evil spiral of exclusion, hate, extremism, and violence-romanticism where they find forums for community and incitement online. This is a growing phenomenon that makes me worried. These forums online are, according to the police, major challenges and incredibly difficult to manage and prevent.

But as I mentioned earlier, researchers in both terrorism and extremism clearly point out that it never starts with the children. These are thoughts and ideas that are born when xenophobia, fear of the unknown, and hatred take hold among adults and in society, and they are then spread to our children and young people.

Mr. Speaker! The Social Democratic government took the initiative to update the national strategy that the previous speaker spoke about, which was then a new strategy against terrorism. This led to the submission of 28 propositions with legislative proposals specifically aimed at terrorism and violent extremism. The strategy laid the foundation for two cross-bloc agreements on the fight against terrorism. It is something we as a country should be proud of, because it is a sign of strength when a large majority in Sweden's Riksdag stands behind legislative proposals.

It is welcome that the new government continues the work that the Social Democratic government began. As the previous speaker mentioned, an updated strategy is on the table which we will soon address in the chamber.

Terrorism and violence-promoting extremism unfortunately continue to grow and be a threat to our country and our way of life. Sweden has, since the summer of 2023, moved from being regarded as a legitimate target for terrorist attacks to being regarded as a prioritized target. Therefore, we must of course all continue to work with both preventing and preempting this type of acts of violence and thoughts.

In a time when Sweden is becoming both more dangerous and poorer every day, decisive action is required to increase Swedish security. We need clear sentencing increases and measures against extremism online. More police must be given the tools required to tackle the situation. These are some of the measures that are crucial in the fight against extremism and terrorism.

At the same time, we know that more is required. We must also manage the challenge of attacking the root of the hatred, stand up against the threat to our democracy and rebuild the strong sense of community that we once felt great trust in in Sweden.

When Swedish neo-Nazism grew stronger in the 1990s, it was met with the combined force of the entire society. Police and intelligence services acted, but several other initiatives were taken from both politics and civil society to counter the increased extremism.

That is why, according to us Social Democrats, it is time for a new national unity against extremism and for democracy and trust in our country. We therefore move for approval of reservation number 1.

(Applause)

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

Gudrun Nordborg (V)

Mr. Speaker! I also want, like Anna just now, to focus above all on the preventive work. I never think that we can escape how extremely important it is. When I read the committee report, I appreciate that this is described quite a bit, even though it comes from the Tidö parties.

The Center against violent extremism has, I believe, become very important. The Center started in 2018 and has been given successively expanded opportunities to act. It is a unit within Brå, which in turn has had to create additional units. I think it could be justified to make the Center against violent extremism an independent agency of its own. But what is important is what they do, regardless of the organizational form or the mantle around them. Extra important is the increasingly developed work they carry out, aimed not least at schools and the young. It is not the young who are evil, but it is the young who risk being attracted by the extremists and perhaps start acting and following, not least, what happens online.

Within the Center against Violence-Oriented Extremism, there is, among other things, a group that acts powerfully when it comes to school attacks and is specialized in detecting such. There are also different teams that can act quickly, including a mobile support team that can act towards both large and, which perhaps is extra important, small municipalities, which do not have the resources and experience that may have managed to be gathered in the larger municipalities.

At the center, it turns out, one receives approximately one concern contact per week, from a parent, a teacher, or someone else who is worried about what will happen to a certain youth; it concerns fear of radicalization. One manages to mobilize around this person in a strategic way because one starts from knowledge-based practices, which in turn have their basis in research and proven experience in Sweden and internationally.

I mentioned that there is a mobile support team that can be flexible and take action. There is methodological support when threats arise around or against a certain school, which can also come from the outside – we know that. They have also recently published a report on how to work preventatively digitally and how the police or social services can work with an online presence to counter radicalization online.

I also want to mention that the center, of course, cooperates with other authorities on a broad scale and is responsible for a great deal of networking and system-building with other important organizations such as the police, Säpo and many others. One also has cooperation with researchers and stimulates and produces publications on its own initiative, among others regarding men, masculinity and violent extremism. I believe that these are important sources for us to reflect further upon.

Another aspect of the center's important activities that I would like to mention is that they have had the responsibility of receiving returning women and children from Syria. They have been able to invest in preventing continued radicalization and accelerating reintegration. It has involved many different interventions. They have both been able to participate in and support legal processes in cases where crimes have been committed by returnees and also apparently succeeded well in supporting the children who have returned. They have thus prevented continued radicalization and been able to achieve a reintegration.

Here I think we can see very strong efforts in the preventive area, which is based on us strengthening human rights and democratic efforts in Sweden.

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

Adam Marttinen (SD)

Mr. Speaker! We are debating the motion report on terrorism. The Sweden Democrats are of the opinion that we in Sweden have far too many terror threats. Some may have historically been of the opposite opinion – one can at least assume that when one examines the policy that has been the basis for the greatest growth of violent extremism in our country.

In the Security Service's annual reports over the years, it appears quite clearly that the group that is largest when it comes to violent extremism, that is, violent Islamism, has its roots in the immigration that previous governments have been responsible for. To large extent, the breadth and scope of the terror threat we have in Sweden today is clearly linked to Sweden's previous immigration policy.

This is what the Sweden Democrats have been against. The Sweden Democrats have been of the opinion that we should not have any mass immigration to our country. We have not been of the opinion that we need more terror threats in Sweden. People who harbor such sympathies and constitute a threat to our country shall not be granted residence permits in Sweden or Swedish citizenship. They shall not be able to travel to Syria or Iraq and participate in terror wars - murder women and children - to then come back to Sweden, stay here, keep their citizenship and live on benefits. This has been the effect of the previous governments' policies, and it is what the Sweden Democrats have been against.

According to the line that stems from our view that we have far too many terrorists in our country, we have a reservation in the consideration. Sverigedemokraterna has submitted a motion for an additional possibility to deport people from our country. It is, I would like to assert, the crime-preventing measure where we have the most to gain – to deport people who constitute a terror threat from our country.

We have today the possibility to deport people who constitute a threat to the state's security. It is a rather difficult law to enforce, admittedly, but we have that possibility. If the Sverigedemokraterna had been allowed to decide, there would have been a bit more pressure on that issue. We will have to see if this government succeeds in living up to that. It is an issue that I will follow quite closely. I want to make you aware of that.

In our motion, we aim for a previous law that has existed in Sweden regarding deportation in the interest of the realm. It is therefore about a broadening of the possibility to deport persons who in one way or another constitute a threat or should not remain in Sweden.

Let me also mention something in the context of the debate here today. It is easy for parties to become one-sided. When the Social Democrats speak about terrorism, it is neo-Nazism and right-wing extremism that they bring up, and then there is silence.

I want to emphasize that there is a tangible risk of terrorist attacks linked to the far-right environment. It is not so strange, as it appears from the Security Service's annual reports that it is one of the larger environments in our country. We have also previously had the violent autonomous environment which has been more dormant, but one should not take that too lightly either.

Environments move and grow in slightly different ways and pose threats in different situations in different ways. Therefore, it is very good that we have a security police that has been given extended powers and that we have a government that ensures the Security Service receives a larger suit in terms of both resources and tools, just as we have a police force that receives the same. This helps our country to keep track of individuals, regardless of whether the individuals have right-wing extremist, autonomous, or Islamist motives. It helps that we have a government that considers that and does not unilaterally stare blindly at one or another extremism because it fits the political narrative that one wants to push through.

I think it is somewhat remarkable that the Social Democrats completely neglect the greatest threatening environment for our country, the violent Islamism. But that is for the Social Democrats to bear. We stand by our policy, and I move for approval of our reservation on deportation in the interest of the realm.

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

Rasmus Ling (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I will not be long-winded on this late evening, but I did, however, intend to say a few things.

We have no reservation in this matter. We have some motions, but they are being handled with so-called simplified treatment. We will soon have a debate on the communication that the government has submitted to the Riksdag, the national strategy against terrorism, and there I will elaborate on our positions a bit more.

Mr. Speaker! I would like to take the opportunity to bring up the situation within the correctional services and the concern I feel regarding the pressured and difficult situation there, which risks leading to a lot of negative things. One of the threats is actually radicalization and, in the long run, terrorism the day individuals come out of prisons, if they have been radicalized during their time there.

I view with concern that the government is not taking this seriously. One does not see the connection between, for example, double-layering and the risk that people who previously have not been in such environments can spend a lot of time unmonitored with hate preachers or others who are deeply radicalized.

I debated this this week with the Minister for Justice. I do not think I am getting the answers that both I and the Swedish people should be getting. Instead, people speak of how double-layering is purely positive and that one should plan for it when building new. They are turning a blind eye to the risks, Mr. Speaker. I and Miljöpartiet will remind of this.

I am not saying that there may not be positive sides in some cases for those who are imprisoned sharing a cell, but when the situation is so pressured and there are no options for action or any flexibility, it is not positive but on the contrary very risky and worrying.

I will also say something about the Center against violent extremism, which is a very important activity. We have previously suggested that they could become a separate agency, but we want them to at least be strong and receive resources to work in a structured way against violent extremism.

In this context, of course, the Swedish Security Service, Säpo, is the most central authority. Over time, they have received large funding supplements, and we see that they will need this as well moving forward. It is about supplements in money and in tools to work against terrorism and for Sweden's security in a time that is very worrying.

Mr. Speaker! As said, we will return to these discussions when we debate the referral, and at that time we will have a number of additional proposals. But here and now, I am content to move for the approval of the committee's proposal.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(A decision was to be taken on 15 February.)

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