sou · H3B3103 · 2015-12-08 00:00:00 — The term “transgender identity or expression” has the same meaning in all the acts in which it occurs. The term has met criticism since its introduction. This criticism has mainly involved the view that the chosen wording is written from the perspective that this is a divergence, i.e. that it assumes an understanding of a norm and singles out those who do not adhere to it. Furthermore, it is the inquiry's opinion that both the term itself and its legal definition are ambiguous and misleading. The term and its definition might lead to unnecessary problems in terms of where to draw the line and to misconceptions concerning the scope of the protection. Irrespective of the fact that the legal history to some extent clarifies what is meant by the ground for discrimination “transgender identity or expression”, the inquiry believes that there are good reasons to amend both the ground for discrimination and its defi- nition. The term “gender identity or gender expression” should be chosen instead The term and its definition should be amended in such a way as to abandon singling out transgender persons as being divergent, while taking into consideration the mentioned ambiguities and criticism. The inquiry proposes that the ground for discrimination “trans- gender identity or expression” in the Discrimination Act and other acts be replaced with “gender identity or gender expression”. In addition, it is proposed that the ground “gender identity or gender expression” in the Discrimination Act be defined as a person's iden- tity or expression in the form of clothing, body language, behaviour or other similar circumstance that relates to gender. The proposed wording of this ground for discrimination is closer to how the ground is usually described in international documents. These often use the expression “gender identity”, sometimes in combination with “gender expression”. In principle, this amendment means that all individuals will be protected from discrimination on the basis of gender identity or gender expression, regardless of how that gender identity or gender expression relates to the norms for the gender assigned to them. This means that this ground for discrimination will also include “cisgender people” (essentially people who have a gender identity or a gender expression that is and always has been consistent with the norms for the gender they were originally assigned) when such people are discriminated against on the basis of their gender iden- tity or gender expression. This amendment thus involves a formal expansion of the scope of this ground for discrimination. However, it is hard to believe that this expansion could have any major practi- cal significance. As a result of this assessment, the inquiry proposes that the corresponding amendment should also be made to the other acts and ordinances in which the term “transgender identity or expression” Exceptions should be made only for two ordinances. One of these contains provisions concerning the 's responsibility for matters concerning the situation of homosexual, bisexual and transsexual people and people with a transgender iden- tity. The second ordinance contains provisions concerning central government grants to certain organisations. For these ordinances, the inquiry proposes that “transgender identity or expression” be replaced with the term “transgender persons” together with an explanation of what is meant by “transgender persons” in each ordi- nance. Greater protection for transgender persons through the criminal law The inquiry's remit has been to consider whether transgender persons should belong to the groups covered by the provisions concerning agitation against a national or ethnic group in Chapter 16, Section 8 of the Penal Code (BrB), the Freedom of the Press Act (TF) and the Fundamental on Freedom of Expression (YGL), the provision concerning unlawful discrimination in Chapter 16, Section 9 of BrB and the prosecution rule for the crime of insulting behaviour in Chapter 5, Section 5 of BrB. Furthermore, the inquiry had to consider whether any amendments to the aforementioned provisions, for example with respect to the interest in having tech- nically consistent legal solutions, should result in any amendment to the rule of increasing the severity of the penalty in Chapter 29, Section 2, point 7 of BrB. The rule concerning increasing the severity of the punishment differs from that of the other provisions mentioned in that it already covers transgender persons. According to the terms of reference, there is reason to consider whether the protection provided to transgender persons though criminal law should be strengthened. The terms of reference state that there may be a practical need for legislation targeting agitation against transgender persons as a group. Furthermore, international developments in this area point favour stronger protection. The provisions concerning agitation against a national or ethnic group At present, it is not a punishable offence to threaten or express contempt for transgender persons as a group. However, there are a number of provisions in the Penal Code concerning offences that may also constitute violations of freedom of the press and freedom of expression, granting transgender persons some protection against threatening or offensive statements such as provisions on insulting behaviour, defamation, unlawful threat and inciting rebellion. These provisions provide transgender persons with some protection against threatening and offensive statements, but do not provide protection against agitative propaganda directed towards transgender persons as a collectively defined group. Transgender persons are very vulnerable. Among other sources, reports published by the show that transgender persons are subject to discrimination, violence, threats and other offensive treatment to a much higher degree than the rest of the population, precisely because they are transgender persons. Furthermore, these reports demonstrate that the health, particularly mental health, of transgender persons is much poorer than that of the rest of the population. This is probably explained by their vulnerable situation. As regards agitation against transgender persons as a group specifically, there is no reliable information on how common this is. Since agitation against transgender persons is not a punishable offence at present, there are no official crime statistics in this area. the course of the inquiry, however, evidence has emerged for the existence of agitation against transgender persons, mainly in the form of agitation on the internet. Comments in various “threads” contain a number of examples of statements to the effect that LGBT people in general and transgender persons in particular are unnatural, immoral, sick and perverted. In some cases, these state- ments could constitute agitation. That there is no evidence to support the position that agitation against transgender persons is an extensive problem is not of decisive importance. Transgender persons are such a vulnerable group that there is reason to grant them specific protection, even from offences that occur more infrequently. In addition, there is reason to fear that agitative propaganda of this kind may become more common as transgender persons become increasingly visible in society. There is also the fact that knowledge about transgender persons is generally low. Many people are unclear on the difference between gender identity or gender expression on the one hand and sexual orientation on the other. Agitation against transgender persons is part of and intermingled with agitation against LGBT people in general and with miscellaneous questions about sexual orientation. It can be assumed that the offender is rarely clear about the ground(s) on which they are agitating, other than that this agitation is directed towards what is, in the offender's personal philosophy, “abnormal”. Consequently, unless not only homosexual and bisexual people, but also transgender persons are covered by the agitation provisions, the provisions will not constitute adequate protection for any of these groups. International developments also indicate the time it right to criminalise agitation against transgender persons. In recent years, the rights of transgender persons have begun to be highlighted in international contexts. An example of this is the 2010 recommen- dation by for protection against discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity that specifies rights for LGBT people. Appendix I B, which concerns “hate speech”, states that member states should take appropriate measures to combat all forms of expression, in- cluding in the media and on the Internet, which may be reasonably understood as likely to produce the effect of inciting, spreading or promoting hatred or other forms of discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender persons. Against this background, the inquiry believes it is necessary to criminalise agitation against transgender persons as a group. As previously established by the legislator and Court of Human Rights, the interest of protecting vulnerable groups against threats and other expressions of contempt constitutes a purpose for which it is permissible to restrict freedom of expression in accordance with both the Instrument of Government and Convention on Human Rights. For this reason, the con- ditions are also in place for the criminalisation of agitation against transgender persons within the scope of both the Freedom of the Press Act and the Fundamental on Freedom of Expression, provided that a need for such criminalisation can be established. According to the inquiry, this need also manifests itself in the legal area encompassing freedom of the press and freedom of expression. The evidence that the inquiry has been able to find for the actual existence of agitative propaganda against transgender persons as a group concerns statements on the internet. These statements may fall within the areas protected by the fundamental laws. If a pro- vision on agitation against transgender persons is to be effective, it must therefore also be present in the Freedom of the Press Act's catalogue of offences. The inquiry proposes that criminalisation take place through an expansion of the Penal Code's provision on agitation against a national or ethnic group so that it also encompasses threats and expressions of contempt for a national or ethnic group or other such group of people with allusion to gender identity or gender expression. The corresponding amendment is proposed in the Freedom of the Press Act's catalogue of offences. The expression “gender identity or gender expression” satisfies the that trans- gender persons should not be singled out as a divergent group. Moreover, the use of this expression means that the basis on which the agitation if founded is formulated in accordance with how the agitation provision is otherwise worded. This wording is also con- sistent with the protection against discrimination in the Instrument of Government and in the civil discrimination legislation on the whole. This expression has a view not just to transgender persons, but to all people regardless of how their gender identity or gender expression relates to a norm. There is evidence that transgender persons require protection from such discrimination as is covered by the provision on unlawful dis- crimination in Chapter 16, Section 9 of the Penal Code. In 2009– 2014, the Equality Ombudsman received around ten complaints concerning incidents at work where the ground for discrimination was transgender identity or expression. Outside working life, the Equality Ombudsman received around eighty cases in the same period, most of which related to healthcare and to access to goods and services. Furthermore, reports published by the show that a significant proportion of trans- gender persons consider themselves to have been subject to discri- mination and refrain from activities for fear of discrimination. Accordingly, there is also a need for protection against discri- mination within the areas regulated under criminal law. Internatio- nal developments also point in the same direction. The inquiry there- fore proposes that the provision concerning unlawful discrimination be expanded to also include discrimination against transgender per- sons. As a consequence of the assessment with respect to the wording of the crime of agitation against a national or ethnic group, the inquiry proposes that the provision concerning unlawful discrimi- nation be expanded to cover unlawful discrimination on the basis of gender identity or gender expression in general, which means the legislation protects all people equally. The prosecution rule with respect to insulting behaviour It is not uncommon for individual transgender persons to be ex- posed to harassment due to their being perceived as having a gender identity or gender expression that diverges from a norm. Reports published by the show that it is much more common for transgender persons to be subject to harassment and other offensive treatment than the population in general. Such harassment might, for example, consist of insulting behaviour. Unlike unlawful threat and molestation, for example, insulting behaviour on the basis that someone is a transgender person is not subject to public prosecution. The latest hate crime reports from demonstrate the existence of defamation offences with transphobic motives, even though the number of identified complaints with such motives is not particularly high. However, there are good grounds to assume that a large number of cases go unreported. It is important that society takes exception to various kinds of prejudiced behaviour targeting transgender persons. Responsibility for condemning these types of offensive behaviour should not rest entirely with the individual. Given that it has emerged that trans- gender persons are generally reluctant to even report crimes they are victims of, the inquiry finds it obvious that transgender persons who are subject to a defamatory offence such as insulting behaviour may need the support that a prosecutor taking on their case entails. Without such support, there is a risk that the provision concerning insulting behaviour loses a significant portion of its protective effect for transgender persons in practice. According to the inquiry, it should therefore be possible for insulting behaviour towards transgender persons to be subject to public prosecution. As a consequence of the assessment with respect to the wording of the crime of agitation against a national or ethnic group, the expansion should encompass gender identity and gender expression in general; that is to say, even in cases where this identity or expression does not diverge from a norm. The inquiry therefore proposes that the rule of prosecution in Chapter 5, Section 5, point 2 of the Penal Code be expanded to cover insulting behaviour with allusion to gender identity or gender expression. Other expansions of the provision concerning unlawful discrimination and the prosecution rule for insulting behaviour The inquiry proposes that the provision concerning unlawful discri- mination and the prosecution rule for insulting behaviour be expanded to cover cases involving erroneous assumptions and offences on the grounds that, or with allusion to the fact that, someone other than the injured party belongs to one of the protected groups. Cases involving erroneous assumptions The provision concerning unlawful discrimination and the pro- secution rule for insulting behaviour do not at present cover cases where an offender discriminates or insults someone on the basis of an erroneous assumption about, e.g. the person's skin colour. There is a great deal of ignorance concerning the difference between sexual orientation on the one hand and gender identity or gender expression on the other. The consequences of this include transgender persons falling victim to crimes because offenders per- ceive them to be homosexual. If such offensive behaviour against transgender persons, motivated by assumptions about their sexual orientation, were not covered by the provisions, the intended protection for transgender persons could, in practice, lose some of its effectiveness. Essential to marking the boundaries of the crimi- nalised area and to what is subject to public prosecution should, in all likelihood, be the culpable motive upon which the discrimination or culpable expression in the insulting behaviour is based, regard- less of whether the offender is accurate in their assumptions. The law enforcement authorities should also not need to investigate which sexual orientation or gender identity the victim actually has. Against this background, the provisions should be expanded to cover cases involving erroneous assumptions, at least with regard to sexual orientation and gender identity or gender expression. However, it is the inquiry's understanding that there is no reason to treat the different grounds in the provisions differently and there- by make the scope of some grounds greater than that of others. Accordingly, the inquiry proposes that cases in which the offender has made an erroneous assumption with respect to any of the protected grounds be covered without exception by the protection of the provisions. This is accomplished by the words “his or her” being removed from the provisions. Unlawful discrimination and insulting behaviour on the basis that someone other than the injured party belongs to one of the protected groups It is also the case that the provision concerning unlawful discrimi- nation and the prosecution rule for insulting behaviour do not at present cover discrimination on the basis of, and insulting behaviour with allusion to, a person other than the injured party belonging to one of the protected groups. However, the inquiry believes it is unjustified to differentiate depending on whether the motive for the discrimination or insul- ting behaviour lies in the gender identity or gender expression of the person against whom the act is directed or that of, for example, a relative of that person. The provisions should therefore be expanded to include discrimination and insulting behaviour on the ground that another person belongs to one of the protected groups. The inquiry believes that there is no reason to treat the different grounds differently and thereby make the scope for some grounds greater than that of others. The inquiry therefore proposes that the scope of such an expansion of the provision concerning unlawful discri- mination and of the prosecution rule shall refer to all the protected grounds listed in the provisions. This too is accomplished by the words “his or her” being removed from the provisions. The rule concerning increasing the severity of the punishment For the purposes of clarity, and as a consequence of the proposed amendments to Chapter 16, Sections 8 and 9 of BrB and Chapter 5, Section 5 of BrB, the inquiry proposes that the rule concerning in- creasing the severity of the punishment in Chapter 29, Section 2, point 7 of BrB expressly state that it is an aggravating circumstance if a motive for the crime was to insult a person or a group of people on the basis of their gender identity or gender expression. On account of the rules applicable to the amendment of a funda- mental law, the amendments to the Freedom of the Press Act's provision on agitation against a national or ethnic group can enter into force no earlier than 1 January 2019. The amendments to BrB's corresponding provision should enter into force at the same time. As for the other proposed amendments, it should be possible for these to enter into force on 1 2017. lag om ändring i tryckfrihetsförordningen Härigenom föreskrivs att 7 kap. 4 § tryckfrihetsförordningen ska ha följande lydelse. Med beaktande av det i 1 kap. angivna syftet med en allmän tryck- frihet ska såsom tryckfrihetsbrott anses följande gärningar, om de begås genom tryckt skrift och är straffbara enligt lag: 1. högförräderi, förövat med uppsåt att riket eller del därav ska med våldsamma eller annars lagstridiga medel eller med utländskt bistånd läggas under främmande makt eller bringas i beroende av sådan makt eller att del av riket ska på så sätt lösryckas eller att åt- gärd eller beslut av statschefen, regeringen, eller högsta domarmakten ska med utländskt bistånd framtvingas eller hindras, om gärningen innebär fara för uppsåtets förverkligande; försök, förberedelse eller stämpling till sådant högförräderi; 2. krigsanstiftan, om fara för att riket ska invecklas i krig eller andra fientligheter framkallas med utländskt bistånd; 3. spioneri, varigenom någon för att gå främmande makt till handa obehörigen befordrar, lämnar eller röjer uppgift om försvarsverk, vapen, förråd, import, export, tillverkningssätt, underhandlingar, beslut, eller något förhållande i övrigt, vars uppenbarande för främ- mande makt kan medföra men för säkerhet, vare sig upp- 1 Senaste lydelse 2014:1370. giften är riktig eller inte; försök, förberedelse eller stämpling till sådant spioneri; 4.obehörig befattning med hemlig uppgift, varigenom någon utan syfte att gå främmande makt till handa begår gärning som av- ses under 3 och uppgiften rör något förhållande av hemlig natur; försök eller förberedelse till sådan obehörig befattning med hemlig uppgift; stämpling till sådant brott, om detta är att anse som grovt, vid vilken bedömning det särskilt ska beaktas om gärningen inne- fattade tillhandagående av främmande makt eller var av synnerligen farlig beskaffenhet med hänsyn till pågående krig eller rörde för- hållande av stor betydelse eller om den brottslige röjde vad som på grund av allmän eller enskild tjänst betrotts honom eller henne; 5.vårdslöshet med hemlig uppgift, varigenom någon av grov oakt- samhet begår gärning som avses under 4; 6.uppror, förövat med uppsåt att statsskicket ska med vapen- makt eller annars med våldsamma medel omstörtas eller att åtgärd eller beslut av statschefen, regeringen, eller högsta domar- makten ska på så sätt framtvingas eller hindras, om gärningen inne- bär fara för uppsåtets förverkligande; försök, förberedelse eller stämpling till sådant uppror; 7.landsförräderi eller landssvek, i vad därigenom, då riket är i krig eller annars i lag meddelade bestämmelser om sådant brott äger tillämpning, någon missleder eller förråder dem som är verksamma för rikets försvar eller förleder dem till myteri, trolöshet eller mod- löshet, förråder egendom som är av betydelse för totalförsvaret eller begår annan liknande förrädisk gärning som är ägnad att medföra men för totalförsvaret eller innefattar bistånd åt fienden; försök, förberedelse eller stämpling till sådant landsförräderi eller lands- svek; 8.landsskadlig vårdslöshet, i vad därigenom någon av oaktsam- het begår gärning som avses under 7; 9.ryktesspridning till fara för rikets säkerhet, varigenom, då riket är i krig eller annars i lag meddelade bestämmelser om sådant brott har tillämpning, någon sprider falska rykten eller andra osanna påståenden, som är ägnade att framkalla fara för rikets säkerhet, eller till främmande makt framför eller låter framkomma sådana rykten eller påståenden eller bland krigsmän sprider falska rykten eller andra osanna påståenden som är ägnade att framkalla trolöshet eller modlöshet; 10. uppvigling, varigenom någon uppmanar eller annars söker för- leda till brottslig gärning, svikande av medborgerlig skyldighet eller ohörsamhet mot myndighet eller åsidosättande av vad som åligger krigsman i tjänsten; 11. hets mot 11. hets mot folkgrupp, vari- genom någon hotar eller ut- genom någon hotar eller ut- trycker missaktning för folk- trycker missaktning för folk- grupp eller annan sådan grupp grupp eller annan sådan grupp av personer med anspelning på