Sweden

Sweden is a constitutional monarchy with a parliamentary democracy. Sweden is a member of the EU and the UN but has declined NATO membership. The country has a social welfare system providing education and health care to all its citizens and ranks very highly on the UN Human Development Report.

Constitution and government Education and children’s rights Family, community, society, religious courts and tribunals Freedom of expression advocacy of humanist values
There is a religious tax or tithing which is compulsory, or which is state-administered and discriminates by precluding non-religious groups
No formal discrimination in education
No religious tribunals of concern, secular groups operate freely, individuals are not persecuted by the state
No fundamental restrictions on freedom of expression or advocacy of humanist values
Constitution and government
There is a religious tax or tithing which is compulsory, or which is state-administered and discriminates by precluding non-religious groups
Education and children’s rights
No formal discrimination in education
Family, community, society, religious courts and tribunals
No religious tribunals of concern, secular groups operate freely, individuals are not persecuted by the state
Freedom of expression advocacy of humanist values
No fundamental restrictions on freedom of expression or advocacy of humanist values
Use of Conscientious Objection clauses resulting in the denial of lawful services to women and LGBTI+ people
Religious or ideological instruction is mandatory in all or most state-funded schools with no secular or humanist alternative
Insufficient information or detail not included in this report
Insufficient information or detail not included in this report

Countries: Kazakhstan

The state is secular, with separation of religious and political authorities, not discriminating against any religion or belief
Insufficient information or detail not included in this report
No fundamental restrictions on freedom of expression or advocacy of humanist values
Insufficient information or detail not included in this report

Countries: no countries relate to this boundary condition

No condition holds in this strand
No condition holds in this strand

Countries: Andorra

No condition holds in this strand
Religious courts or tribunals rule directly on some family or ‘moral’ matters; it is legally an opt-in system, but the possibility of social coercion is very clear
No condition holds in this strand

Countries: no countries relate to this boundary condition

Localised or infrequent but recurring and widespread social marginalisation or prejudice against the non-religious

This condition is unusual in that it is applied in cases where there is some social discrimination, but it is not pervasive or nationwide. This condition is applied when there is sufficient background evidence to warrant the assertion that discrimination is not anomalous but widespread, and this condition may be applied for example even where if there is no legislative discrimination or where the non-religious may have legal recourse against such discrimination. However, societal discrimination (i.e. discrimination by peers, as opposed to state or legal discrimination) is not easily measured, and for this reason the Report does not currently have similar more severe boundary conditions to capture higher levels of social discrimination per se. In principle these may be introduced in future. However, we consider that countries with actual higher levels of social discrimination against the non-religious will generally already meet other higher level (more severe) boundary conditions under this thematic strand.

Countries: Botswana, Greece, Serbia, United States of America

The dominant influence of religion in public life undermines the right to equality and/or non-discrimination

Applied when the influence of religion on public life undermines others’ rights, such as SRHR, women’s rights, LGBTI+ rights.

May be applied when the influence is overt (i.e. when religious laws are applied to undermine others’ rights) or covert (i.e. where religious pressure groups exert influence to affect policy)

Countries: Andorra, Antigua and Barbuda, Armenia, Bahamas, Belize, Bolivia, Brunei Darussalam, Congo, Democratic Republic of, Croatia, Cuba, Dominica, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Eswatini, Fiji, Gambia, Ghana, Guatemala, Guinea, Hungary, Iran, Italy, Jamaica, Jordan, Liberia, Lithuania, Mexico, Moldova, Montenegro, Mozambique, Nicaragua, North Macedonia, Oman, Paraguay, Qatar, Romania, Russia, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Slovakia, Solomon Islands, Sri Lanka, Suriname, Timor-Leste (East Timor), Trinidad and Tobago, Ukraine, Zambia

The non-religious are persecuted socially or there are prohibitive social taboos against atheism, humanism or secularism
Complete tyranny precludes all freedoms of expression and thought, religion or belief

Applied when overriding acts of oppression by the State are extreme, to the extent that the question of freedom of thought and expression is almost redundant, because all human rights and freedoms are quashed by authorities.

Countries: North Korea

Expression of core Humanist principles on democracy, freedom and human rights is brutally repressed
Expression of non-religious views is severely persecuted, or is rendered almost impossible by severe social stigma, or is highly likely to be met with hatred or violence
There is significant social marginalisation of the non-religious or stigma associated with expressing atheism, humanism or secularism
Religious or ideological indoctrination is utterly pervasive in schools
There is a nominal state church with few privileges or progress is being made toward disestablishment

Countries: Bulgaria, Norway, Peru, Rwanda

The non-religious are barred from some government offices (including posts reserved for particular religions or sects)
‘Apostasy’ is outlawed and punishable with a prison sentence

Countries: Bahrain, Comoros, Jordan, Kuwait

‘Apostasy’ or conversion from a specific religion is outlawed and punishable by death
Some religious courts rule in civil or family matters on a coercive or discriminatory basis
Religious authorities have supreme authority over the state

Countries: Iran

State legislation is partly derived from religious law or by religious authorities
Preferential treatment is given to a religion or religion in general

This condition is applied where there are miscellaneous indicators that organs of the state offer various forms of support for a religion, or to religion in general over non-religious worldviews, suggesting a preference for those beliefs, or that the organs of that religion are privileged.

Countries: Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Belize, Bhutan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Burundi, Canada, Cape Verde, Chile, Colombia, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Finland, Germany, Ghana, Guatemala, Guyana, Haiti, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Liberia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Montenegro, Mozambique, Nepal, New Zealand, Nigeria, North Macedonia, Oman, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Qatar, Romania, Rwanda, San Marino, Serbia, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Solomon Islands, Sri Lanka, Tajikistan, Tanzania, Timor-Leste (East Timor), Tunisia, Turkey, Tuvalu, United Kingdom, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Zimbabwe

There is a pattern of impunity or collusion in violence by non-state actors against the nonreligious
State-funded schools provide religious education which may be nominally comprehensive but is substantively biased or borderline confessional
Religious or ideological instruction in a significant number of schools is of a coercive fundamentalist or extremist variety

This condition highlights countries where schools subject children to fundamentalist religious instruction with no real opportunity to question fundamentalist tenets, or where lessons routinely encourage hatred (for example religious or ethnic hatred). The wording “significant number of schools” is not given a rigid quantification (sometimes the worst-offending schools are unregistered, illegal, or otherwise uncounted); however the condition is not applied in cases where only a small number of schools meet the description and may be anomalous, as opposed to being indicative of a widespread problem.

Countries: Bangladesh, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia

State legislation is largely or entirely derived from religious law or by religious authorities
Anomalous discrimination by local or provincial authorities, or overseas territories
Religious or ideological instruction is mandatory in at least some public schools (without secular or humanist alternatives)
‘Blasphemy’ or criticism of religion is outlawed and punishable by death
Government figures or state agencies openly marginalize, harass, or incite hatred or violence against the non-religious
Government authorities push a socially conservative, religiously or ideologically inspired agenda, without regard to the rights of those with progressive views
It is illegal to advocate secularism or church-state separation, or such advocacy is suppressed
Prohibitive interreligious social control (including interreligious marriage bans)
Quasi-divine veneration of a ruling elite is enforced, or a single-party regime holds uncontested power, subject to severe punishment
Legal or constitutional provisions exclude non-religious views from freedom of belief
It is illegal to register an explicitly Humanist, atheist, secularist or other non-religious NGO or other human rights organization, or such groups are persecuted by authorities
There is a religious tax or tithing which is compulsory, or which is state-administered and discriminates by precluding non-religious groups
The non-religious are barred from holding government office
Some concerns about children's right to specifically religious freedom

This condition may apply if specifically religious education, religious materials, or specific religious denominations are so tightly controlled that children are in fact over-protected from exposure to religion and are likely unable to explore or construct their own worldview in accordance with their evolving capacities. This condition helps us to classify states (perhaps with secular constitutions) which have criminalized specifically religious beliefs or practices. This condition is not applied if the restricted beliefs or practices are found to be outlawed due to their being of an extremist variety. While this condition does not directly reflect discrimination against non-religious persons or non-religious ideas, it does represent an overall threat to freedom of thought, conscience, religion or belief; such restrictions could spill over to affect non-religious beliefs later; and they pose a risk of backlash against over-zealous secular authorities or even against non-religious individuals by association.

Countries: China, Congo, Democratic Republic of, Cuba, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Guinea, Guyana, Italy, Kazakhstan, Laos, Madagascar, Mexico, North Macedonia, Romania, Serbia, Tajikistan, Togo, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Zimbabwe

It is illegal or unrecognised to identify as an atheist or as non-religious
It is made difficult to register or operate an explicitly Humanist, atheist, secularist or other non-religious NGO or other human rights organization
Legend
 
Systemic Discrimination
Mostly Satisfactory
Free and Equal
More information about rating table

Constitution and government

The constitution and other laws and policies protect freedom or religion or belief, as well as the freedoms of expression, association and assembly.

The Church of Sweden ceased to be the established state church in 2000, and Sweden is a highly secular country (a Gallup Poll in 2016 found that 18% of Swedes identify themselves as atheist and 55% as non-religious).

Religious membership fees

The government operates a scheme allowing approved religious groups (and not secular belief groups) to collect membership “fees” through the tax system. The Church of Sweden in particular benefits from this scheme. Until 1996, Swedes were automatically registered as a member of the church based on parents’ membership. From 1996 membership has been dependent on baptism.
<kulturkraftsyd.se/fods-man-in-i-svenska-kyrkan/>

Whether assumed to be a member under the previous parental assumption of membership, or baptized post-1996, it is possible to retire membership of the Church of Sweden.
<svenskakyrkan.se/medlem/uttrade_ur_svenska_kyrkan>

Members of other approved religious groups, including some non-Christian minorities, also have the right to a tax deductible membership fee paid through the tax system, but only “faith communities” (Trossamfundet) are listed. There does not appear to be any provision for secular belief or organizations representing non-religious worldviews to gain equal recognition. Members of approved religious groups must apply to their religious groups (not the government) in order to stop paying fees to the religious group.
<skatteverket.se/privat/skatter/arbeteochinkomst/skattetabeller/avgifttillandratrossamfund.4.18e1b10334ebe8bc80005629.html>

Freedom of expression, advocacy of humanist values

Freedom of speech is guaranteed by law and respected in practice.

Chapter 16 Section 8 of the penal code criminalizes “A person who, in a disseminated statement or communication, threatens or expresses contempt for a national, ethnic or other such group of persons with allusion to race, colour, national or ethnic origin or religious belief”. Analysis suggests that only incitement-to-hatred-type violations would be considered contempt for “religious belief” and therefore this does not constitute a ‘blasphemy’-type law.

Highlighted cases

In 2011, Pakistani refugee Khalid Saeed and his family were denied asylum in Sweden, despite verifiable evidence of him being a well-known, outspoken ex-Muslim already exposed to threats, abuse and a significant risk of prosecution by the Pakistani state under Islamic judiciary, and of potential persecution by extremist groups.
<iheu.org/let-khalid-saeed-stay-sweden/>

The Bangladeshi blogger Ananta Bijoy Das, shortly before he was killed in Bangladesh in 2015, had applied for a visa to travel to Sweden at the invitation of Swedish PEN (International PEN and its national branches regularly work with writers at genuine risk of persecution). However, Sweden rejected his application, on the grounds that he was unmarried and not wealthy and therefore could not be considered sufficiently “established” in Bangladesh such taht he might fail to return. He was killed within weeks. The decision was severely and widely criticised.
<thelocal.se/20150513/sweden-slammed-for-denying-visa-to-murdered-blogger>
<nytimes.com/2015/05/14/world/asia/fearing-bangladeshi-blogger-might-claim-asylum-sweden-blocked-visit-that-could-have-saved-his-life.html>

The position of the Swedish Humanist Association, Humanisterna, is that these and other cases may suggest that the Swedish migration authority (Migrationsverket) may have considered the non-religious as less exposed to risk of oppression than religious minorities in a similar situation; and that asylum should be granted to atheists from countries where atheism or apostasy is criminalised, or if the authorities in the country of origin fail to defend people’s right to freedom of belief. Furthermore, asylum should be granted on equal grounds, e.g. an ex-Muslim apostate may have equal or higher need for protection compared to religious minorities.

Mishu Dhar had for several years been receiving threats in the form of phone calls, text messages and emails. In 2015, following the murder of several fellow bloggers in Bangladesh and having received death threats himself, he went to Sweden and applied for asylum. Sweden initially rejected his application. He said at the time, “I am disappointed and scared… If I return to Bangladesh, I can be murdered in the same way as the other bloggers. It is life or death for me.”
<iheu.org/sweden-rejects-asylum-application-for-threatened-bangladeshi-blogger/>

After a campaign by supporters including humanists in Sweden his case was re-evaluated due to “new circumstances” (which may reflect an update to the country data for Bangladesh held by the Migration board). Two and half years after his initial application, he was granted asylum and a time-limited residency in December 2017.