In June 2022 in Oslo, a man with a machine gun fired at those celebrating Pride, killing two and injuring at least 21.
In 2009 and 2010, a man cycled around Malmö and fired shots at people who looked ‘foreign’. He was convicted of two murders and eight attempted murders.
In February 2015 in Copenhagen, a man attacked a debate and a synagogue with an automatic weapon, killing two people.
An 18-year-old school student shot and killed eight fellow students and school staff in Jokala, Finland in November 2007.
The four episodes above are all examples of violent incidents committed in the Nordic countries. They make clear the importance of researching how the Nordic countries can best prevent and put an end to violent extremism,” says Tore Bjørgo, head of the project Nordic Multiagency Approaches to Handling Extremism: Policies, Perceptions and Practices, at the Center for Research on Extremism (C-REX), University of Oslo. Researchers from the universities of Aarhus, Gothenburg and Turku, as well as the Norwegian Police University College in Oslo participated in the project.
In Tore Bjørgo’s little office, the back wall is stacked with books, and the research area is hardly visible among the countless titles on the shelves. Here you can find everything from Åsne Seierstad’s “Two Sisters” to Erlend Ofte Arntsen’s “Fremmedkrigerne” (which translates as “Foreign warriors”) and subject-specific books on terrorism, hate crime and fascism.
In answer to the question of why extremism research is important:
“As a society, we’re concerned about violent acts, and we’ve had several serious cases of it here in the Nordic Region, committed by right-wing extremists as well as by jihadists. We’ve seen that it’s fostered insecurity, mistrust and hatred. The terrorist attacks in Norway on 22 July 2011 are the deadliest example, another is the lorry attack on a street in Stockholm in 2017, and last year there was also a shooting in connection with Pride celebrations in Oslo. All of these are incidents intended to create fear in society and have a ripple effect beyond the actions themselves. We’re researching extremism because it’s important to prevent such actions from happening in the future. As much as possible of what we do must be based on knowledge,” says Tore Bjørgo.
Exchange of information is a key factor
The researchers in the project have investigated how different authorities such as schools, social services, the health service and the police are working together and exchanging information. A fundament of the Nordic countries is the approach that the responsibility for preventing violent extremism is shared by many different authorities and organisations. It isn’t just a police matter. Preventative efforts take place in schools, recreational organisations, congregations, assemblies and in families. Many people have the opportunity to spot when a person – often a young person – is starting to engage with extremist environments.
“There is broad agreement in the Nordics that cross-sectoral co-operation is key to limiting violent extremism and the danger it poses. Although there are a number of similarities between the approaches of the Nordic countries, there are also significant differences. It’s quite clear that the Danish approach to co-operation between agencies is more structured and far-reaching, and the guidelines clearer than in the other Nordic countries.”
The same overall model for co-operation doesn’t exist in Norway. The so-called “SLT model” (compilation of local drug and crime prevention initiatives) is found in only half of Norwegian municipalities. In Denmark, the SSP collaboration (between schools, social services and the police) was established back in 1975. It has now been rolled out to every municipality, and an initiative called “Infohus” has now been established at the top of SSP, which is specifically focused on radicalisation and extremism. In Denmark, there is also far more extensive legislation in place which allows sensitive personal information to be exchanged for preventative purposes. In Norway, such information is shared only based on the consent of the person or their parents, unless there is a duty to prevent serious criminal acts.
Now that Denmark has gone a step further in its preventative measures, does this mean that more episodes of extremist violence are being prevented?
“We can’t know that for sure because the cases that are averted rarely make it to the front pages of the papers. The greatest successes are often those that don’t become widely known among the public. However, we have the impression that prevention has been better in Denmark and Norway than in Sweden where, for example, there are major problems with gang crime. A lack of data exchange between the authorities in Sweden has been a hindrance to putting an end to crime of that nature. They’ve been forced to acknowledge that they haven’t been especially successful in preventing and putting an end to both gang violence and violent extremism.”
Sweden has chosen a different approach
Tore Bjørgo explains that there have been greater problems with violent right-wing extremist environments, jihadism and gang crime in Sweden than in Norway, Finland and Denmark.
"One of the explanations is that the Danish and Norwegian police have a stronger preventative mandate. The greater emphasis on prevention among the police in Norway and Denmark than in Sweden is striking, and the Swedish police are less involved when it comes to sitting round the table as part of cross-sectoral co-operation. There are also larger obstacles to sharing information with the police. The police have fallen behind in Sweden because they often only come into the picture once a criminal act has been committed. But now changes seem to be taking place in this area in Sweden.”
Why has this approach been chosen in Sweden?
“If, for example, a student confides in their teacher, many fear that it’ll undermine the trust between the student and the teacher if the teacher reports it to the police. Nevertheless, we aren’t finding any particular differences between the populations of the Nordic countries in their view of whether it’s justified to exchange information about concerns regarding radicalisation. Trust in the authorities is generally high. Nevertheless, the fear of losing trust due to data sharing seems to have led to a more restrictive policy and practice in Sweden,” explains Tore Bjørgo.
But also in the other Nordic countries, many practitioners experience the dilemma of the conflict between exchanging information with the police for preventative purposes and the risk of undermining the trust of students and clients. Confidentiality is an important value in all social work. Many Norwegian practitioners don’t want to go as far with the exchange of information as in Denmark.
“Although co-operation between authorities isn’t a magic cure for extremism, it is a good remedy, and we see that the better that cross-sectoral co-operation is, the more we can solve things together. The Nordic countries have different approaches, but overall they’ve succeeded quite well in many aspects. This doesn’t mean that there haven’t been instances of violence, especially in Sweden, but here in the Nordics we have a proactive ideology and practice which prevents quite a number of extremist acts.”
