Frihet till hat?
Hatbrott, rasistiska organisationer och inskränkningar av yttrandefriheten
Human rightsRacist organizationsFreedom of expressionHate crimeMänskliga rättigheterRasistiska organisationerYttrandefrihetHatbrott
The present paper is part of a project carried on by the Swedish Section of the International Commission of Jurists. Sweden has ratified several major international human rights instruments. Most of the rights are covered by national law, and only in exception is there a discrepancy between national and international law. Such a discrepancy is found in the UN Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Racial Discrimination, in which the State parties agree on penalizing and prohibiting the founding of and participation in racist organizations. Sweden is not complying with this statute, despite the fact that the government has ratified the convention. The Swedish government states that national laws prohibit the activities of these organizations, and therefore it is not necessary to reform the legislation.The National Council for Crime Prevention (Brottsförebyggande rådet) presents an annual report on hate crime in Sweden. Between the years 2005 and 2009 the number of reported hate crimes almost doubled. To some point the increase can be explained by a widened definition of hate crime, but the reports have increased in real terms as well.The Swedish government is combating human rights violations, and the long term objective is to ensure full respect for human rights. Critique raised against Sweden in international reviewing institutions indicates that Sweden has some ground to cover before reaching such an objective. Most of the presented critique concerns the non-existing ban of racist organizations, increased reports of hate crime as well as racist influences within Swedish politics and society as such. Prohibiting racist organizations constitutes limitations in the freedom of expression and the freedom of association. Ever since Sweden incorporated the European convention for the Protection of Human Rights, freedom of expression has been given a unique position within the national legal system. This position is strengthened even further through different judgments in the Swedish Supreme Court, in cases on agitation. The questions raised in this paper are consequently: Is it possible to ensure full respect for human rights, or can you only come near such an ensuring? Does Sweden live up to its international obligations? How does the Swedish government weigh the different rights against each other? Should the rights be differently balanced?The purpose of this paper is, therefore, to establish Sweden?s international obligations, to highlight the possibility of limitations in the freedom of expression and to look at the occurrence of and legislations against hate crime.