Sweden / Court of Appeal / Målnummer B 784-19

Country

Sweden

Title

Sweden / Court of Appeal / Målnummer B 784-19

View full Case

Year

2021

Decision/ruling/judgment date

Thursday, June 10, 2021

Incident(s) concerned/related

Other forms of hate speech

Related Bias motivation

Religion

Groups affected

Muslims

Court/Body type

National Court

Court/Body

Court of Appeal (Svea Hovrätt)

Key facts of the case

The case concerns agitation against a population group (hets mot folkgrupp) online. The defendant was indicted for commenting on four different posts/links in a Facebook group called Stop Islam (Stoppa Islam). The first comment read "Europe is collapsing...now it's up to each state to protect its own citizens and send out the "flow-ins" (Europa faller ihop...nu är det upp till varje stat att skydda sina egna medborgare och skicka ut invällorna). The second comment expressed that Muslims are a race that should be castrated so as not to "breed" (yngla av sig). The third and fourth comment expressed that Muslims are to be equated with monkeys.

Main reasoning/argumentation

In relation to the first comment, the Court held that it can not be said to cross the line for objective and reasonable debate, but falls within the framework of freedom of expression. With regard to the three other comments, the Court assessed that it is obvious that the posts are aimed at Muslims in general and Muslims with a certain skin colour in particular. The Court held that these comments are offensive and derogatory in nature and cross the line for objective and reasonable debate. The statements go beyond what can be considered covered by the defendant’s freedom of expression and expressed contempt for a population group (Muslims).

Is the case related to the application of the Framework Decision on Racism and Xenophobia, the Racial Equality Directive?

Key issues (concepts, interpretations) clarified by the case

The key issue in the case was whether the content of the Facebook comments (derogatory statements) expressed contempt and thereby amounted to agitation against a population group.

Results (sanctions, outcome) and key consequences or implications of the case

The Court of Appeal confirmed the District Court’s judgement on how the statements should be classified and the defendant was sentenced to agitation against a population group regarding three out of four statements.

Key quotation in original language and its unofficial translation into English with reference details

”Avseende inlägget under punkterna 2, 3 och 4 är det enligt tingsrätten mening uppenbart att inläggen riktar sig mot muslimer i allmänhet och mot muslimer med viss hudfärg i synnerhet. Uttalandet enligt åtalspunkten 2 […] är av kränkande och nedsättande karaktär och överskrider gränsen för en saklig och vederhäftig diskussion. Inläggen under åtalspunkterna 3 och 4 […] är av kränkande och nedsättande karaktär och överskrider gränsen för en saklig och vederhäftig diskussion. [Den tilltalades] inlägg under punkterna 2, 3 och 4 går alltså utöver vad som kan anses omfattas av hans yttrandefrihet och är därmed straffbart enligt 16 kap. 8 § brottsbalken.” “Regarding the post under points 2, 3 and 4, it is, according to the District Court's opinion, obvious that the posts are aimed at Muslims in general and at Muslims with a certain skin colour in particular. The statement according to charge 2 [...] is of an offensive and derogatory nature and exceeds the limit of objective and reasonable debate. The posts under charges 3 and 4 […] are of an offensive and derogatory nature and exceeds the limit of objective and reasonable debate. [The defendant's] posts under points 2, 3 and 4 thus go beyond what can be considered covered by his freedom of expression and are thus punishable according to Chapter 16, Section 8 of the Criminal Code.”

DISCLAIMERThe information presented here is collected under contract by the FRA's research network FRANET. The information and views contained do not necessarily reflect the views or the official position of the FRA.