Skip to main content

LUP Student Papers

LUND UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES

Varför det ena men inte det andra?
En undersökning om koranbränningar och förnekelsegärningar på rättsligt likvärdiga grunder kan utgöra hets mot folkgrupp

Oujlouq Forss, Sami LU (2024) LAGF03 20241
Department of Law
Faculty of Law
Abstract (Swedish)
I februari 2021 mottog Sverige en formell underrättelse från EU-kommissionen, där kommissionens hållning var att den svenska lagstiftningen inte implementerats korrekt i förhållande till Rådets rambeslut 2008/913/RIF av den 28 november 2008 om bekämpande av vissa former av och uttryck för rasism och främlingsfientlighet enligt strafflagstiftningen. Underrättelsen resulterade i en proposition med förslag om att utvidga brottet hets mot folkgrupp i 16 kap 8 § Brottsbalken (BrB) till att bl.a. omfatta uttalanden som består i offentligt urskuldande av bl.a. folkmord ( i det följande: förnekelsegärningar).
Syftet med uppsatsen har varit att klargöra varför lagstiftaren valt att specificera brottet hets mot folkgrupp till att omfatta... (More)
I februari 2021 mottog Sverige en formell underrättelse från EU-kommissionen, där kommissionens hållning var att den svenska lagstiftningen inte implementerats korrekt i förhållande till Rådets rambeslut 2008/913/RIF av den 28 november 2008 om bekämpande av vissa former av och uttryck för rasism och främlingsfientlighet enligt strafflagstiftningen. Underrättelsen resulterade i en proposition med förslag om att utvidga brottet hets mot folkgrupp i 16 kap 8 § Brottsbalken (BrB) till att bl.a. omfatta uttalanden som består i offentligt urskuldande av bl.a. folkmord ( i det följande: förnekelsegärningar).
Syftet med uppsatsen har varit att klargöra varför lagstiftaren valt att specificera brottet hets mot folkgrupp till att omfatta förnekelsegärningar men inte koranbränningar, Med koranbränningar har jag i uppsatsen utgått ifrån de uppmärksammade koranbränningarna som Rasmus Paludan vidtog under år 2022. Syftet har uppnåtts genom att utreda frågan huruvida respektive gärning (dvs. förnekelsegärning och koranbränningar) kan betraktas som hets mot folkgrupp sett till gällande rättspraxis och sedan klargöra vilka rättsliga överväganden som föranlett det presenterade lagförslaget. I uppsatsen undersöks gällande rätt i förhållande till respektive gärning genom tillämpning av rättsdogmatisk metod. Undersökningen utmynnar i ett konstaterade om att rättspraxis ger uttryck för en extensiv tolkning av vad som anses utgöra en riktad missaktning enligt rekvisitet i 16 kap. 8 § BrB.
Min slutsats är att det finns ett starkt stöd för respektive gärning att tolkas som hets mot folkgrupp. Detta främst mot bakgrund av en etablerad presumtionsregel för artikel 17 EKMR som innebär att förintelseförnekelse presumeras utgöra hot och antisemitism och således inte omfattas av yttrandefriheten i artikel 10 EKMR. Det finns även fall från Högsta domstolen som klargör att central betydelse ska tillmätas i fråga om hur en gärning uppfattas av åhörarna, vilket har bidragit till mitt jakande svar på frågan om respektive gärning ska utgöra hets mot folkgrupp enligt 16 kap 8 § BrB.
I förhållande till denna specificering av lagrummet har jag även kunnat konstatera att motiven till lagförslaget har varit en viss rädsla för en fördragsbrottstalan enligt artikel 258 FEUF och därav har även genuiniteten bakom lagförslaget ifrågasatts. I förening med detta ifrågasättande har jag även belyst de tänkbara motiven till frånvaron av eget initiativtagande som jag konkretiserat till att lagstiftaren varit i god tro om att den befintliga lagstiftningen redan tillhandahållit ett adekvat skydd för respektive gärning. Min tes styrks i detta hänseende på grundval av mitt svar på den initiala frågeställningen om respektive gärning ska utgöra hets mot folkgrupp. (Less)
Abstract
Sweden received a letter of formal notice from the European Commission in February 2021, wherein the Commission's stance was that Swedish legislation had not been correctly implemented in relation to the Council Framework Decision 2008/913/JHA of 28 November 2008 on combating certain forms and expressions of racism and xenophobia by means of criminal law. The result following this notice was a government bill proposing an extension of the crime of agitation against ethnic group under Chapter 16, Section 8 of the Swedish Penal Code to include, among other things, statements involving public condoning, denying or grossly trivialising crimes of genocide (in the following: acts of genocide denial).
The purpose of this thesis has been to... (More)
Sweden received a letter of formal notice from the European Commission in February 2021, wherein the Commission's stance was that Swedish legislation had not been correctly implemented in relation to the Council Framework Decision 2008/913/JHA of 28 November 2008 on combating certain forms and expressions of racism and xenophobia by means of criminal law. The result following this notice was a government bill proposing an extension of the crime of agitation against ethnic group under Chapter 16, Section 8 of the Swedish Penal Code to include, among other things, statements involving public condoning, denying or grossly trivialising crimes of genocide (in the following: acts of genocide denial).
The purpose of this thesis has been to clarify why the crime of agitation against ethnic group was specified to include acts of genocide denial but not acts of Quran desecration. The purpose was fulfilled by investigating whether either act already constitutes agitation against ethnic group by case law, and then clarifying what the legal considerations may have been for the legislative proposal.
The thesis examines, through the legal dogmatic method, the applicable law in relation to each offense. The result of this examination is that the existing case law is relatively generous in the interpretation of what is to be classified as targeted contempt according to the requirement in Chapter 16, Section 8 of the Swedish Penal Code.
My conclusion is that there is strong support for interpreting each act as agitation against ethnic group. This is primarily due to an established presumption rule for Article 17 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which stipulates that acts of genocide denial are presumed to constitute threat and antisemitism and therefore do not enjoy the protection of freedom of expression under Article 10 of the ECHR. There are also cases from the Swedish Supreme Court that clarifies that great attention should be given to how an act is perceived by the audience, which has, among other aspects, contributed to my affirmative answer to the question of whether each act should constitute agitation against ethnic group in accordance with Chapter 16, Section 8 of the Swedish Penal Code.
Regarding the specification of the legal provision, I have also noted that the potential motive behind the legislative proposal has been a certain fear of infringement proceedings under Article 258 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), and thus the genuineness of the legislative proposal has been questioned. Along with this questioning, I have also highlighted the possible motives for the lack of independent initiative, which I have concretized to the belief that the legislator was acting in good faith, assuming that the existing legislation already provided adequate protection for each act. My thesis is supported in this respect by my answer to the initial question of whether each act should constitute agitation against ethnic group, where my conclusion has been affirmative. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Oujlouq Forss, Sami LU
supervisor
organization
course
LAGF03 20241
year
type
M2 - Bachelor Degree
subject
keywords
Straffrätt, Hets mot folkgrupp, Yttrandefrihet
language
Swedish
id
9153391
date added to LUP
2024-06-26 12:11:49
date last changed
2024-06-26 12:11:49
@misc{9153391,
  abstract     = {{Sweden received a letter of formal notice from the European Commission in February 2021, wherein the Commission's stance was that Swedish legislation had not been correctly implemented in relation to the Council Framework Decision 2008/913/JHA of 28 November 2008 on combating certain forms and expressions of racism and xenophobia by means of criminal law. The result following this notice was a government bill proposing an extension of the crime of agitation against ethnic group under Chapter 16, Section 8 of the Swedish Penal Code to include, among other things, statements involving public condoning, denying or grossly trivialising crimes of genocide (in the following: acts of genocide denial). 
The purpose of this thesis has been to clarify why the crime of agitation against ethnic group was specified to include acts of genocide denial but not acts of Quran desecration. The purpose was fulfilled by investigating whether either act already constitutes agitation against ethnic group by case law, and then clarifying what the legal considerations may have been for the legislative proposal.
The thesis examines, through the legal dogmatic method, the applicable law in relation to each offense. The result of this examination is that the existing case law is relatively generous in the interpretation of what is to be classified as targeted contempt according to the requirement in Chapter 16, Section 8 of the Swedish Penal Code.
My conclusion is that there is strong support for interpreting each act as agitation against ethnic group. This is primarily due to an established presumption rule for Article 17 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which stipulates that acts of genocide denial are presumed to constitute threat and antisemitism and therefore do not enjoy the protection of freedom of expression under Article 10 of the ECHR. There are also cases from the Swedish Supreme Court that clarifies that great attention should be given to how an act is perceived by the audience, which has, among other aspects, contributed to my affirmative answer to the question of whether each act should constitute agitation against ethnic group in accordance with Chapter 16, Section 8 of the Swedish Penal Code.
Regarding the specification of the legal provision, I have also noted that the potential motive behind the legislative proposal has been a certain fear of infringement proceedings under Article 258 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), and thus the genuineness of the legislative proposal has been questioned. Along with this questioning, I have also highlighted the possible motives for the lack of independent initiative, which I have concretized to the belief that the legislator was acting in good faith, assuming that the existing legislation already provided adequate protection for each act. My thesis is supported in this respect by my answer to the initial question of whether each act should constitute agitation against ethnic group, where my conclusion has been affirmative.}},
  author       = {{Oujlouq Forss, Sami}},
  language     = {{swe}},
  note         = {{Student Paper}},
  title        = {{Varför det ena men inte det andra?
En undersökning om koranbränningar och förnekelsegärningar på rättsligt likvärdiga grunder kan utgöra hets mot folkgrupp}},
  year         = {{2024}},
}