Subscribe
A recent verdict in the Stockholm district court shows how ideological possession can undermine the rule of law, even in a country ruled by the right wing.
In 2023, Europe saw a number of activist incidents carried out by groups such as Extinction Rebellion and Last Generation, that often targeted public events, artworks, or infrastructure. Activists held up traffic on highways, sometimes by gluing themselves to the road, they stormed concerts and television programmes, they sabotaged forestry and they vandalised works of art in museums. All of these recurring actions got these climate radicals caught in the eyes of the media, but they all infuriated the public and likely actively damaged the public perception of the climate cause.
How a society manages these types of incidents is a test to the resilience of their democracy. Property rights and the safeguarding of transport are core concerns of the state, but in a Western democracy one must also value the freedom of speech and the right to demonstrate. The conflict between these priorities has divided the debate, although the public opinion is usually leaning far stronger in the direction of law and order.
The ‘intellectual’ approach, as seen from left-wing media figures and politicians, is that the impending climate catastrophe is a global emergency that justifies radical groups in sabotaging traffic (even ambulances), and committing other acts of civil disobedience. The perhaps more common sense approach is that demonstrations must be carried out without obstructing the daily business of non-participants.
Road blockades in particular have been likened to terrorism by certain voices on the Swedish right, who argue that they are impeding important traffic, and may be destabilising society at large. In recent months there has also been a number of break-ins at airports in Sweden, also with radical climate motives, that have raised uncontrolled activism to the agenda as a security threat.
Stockholm court clears art vandals
It is the intellectual approach that has been employed by the Stockholm district court, however. In December, six activists charged with vandalism after having smeared red paste on a painting and glued their hands to it at the Swedish National Museum were cleared of all charges. The incident, which took place in 2023, left the frame of Claude Monet’s “The Artist’s Garden at Giverny” stained, and required the protective glass of the work to be replaced. Although the painting itself was not damaged, there was nonetheless a significant monetary cost for the National Museum to restore the work of art, which has been borrowed from the Musée d’Orsay in Paris.
The district court argued that there was no intention to damage the painting, only to make a statement regarding the group’s climate-related cause, just like the defense had claimed. Resultantly, instead of a conviction for vandalism, the activists walked free without even having to reimburse the already financially pressed National Museum for their expenses.
Critics of the verdict, of which there are very many, argued that the intention should not outweigh the actual economic damage done – and certainly not the risk of the priceless Monet painting having been damaged by the action. Understandably, some are now turning their heads to the court itself for its questionable interpretation of the law in this matter.
Not the first time the court has been accused of bias
There is precedence in the Stockholm district court for lenient sentencing for climate activists. Earlier in 2025, a group of activists charged with various crimes relating to their blockade of a densely trafficked road in central Stockholm were also cleared of all charges – because the act of demanding climate justice, even in a dangerous and obstructive way, is akin to self-defense. In this case, the court used a very ideologically charged perspective on climate change, its consequences, and the responsibilities levelled upon society to prevent it.
There was obviously a bias present in this verdict. Demanding radical climate policy changes being legally comparable to self-defense is obviously a tenuous extrapolation at best. It presupposes both that climate change is an immediate danger to life and property, and that the parties affected by the climate activism are the instigators for this danger. Obviously nothing that would hold up in a normal trial.
The consequences of the authority of the courts being used in such questionable ways is that trust in courts will decline, which is a problem that Sweden has already endured for quite some time. Often the distrust in the legal system – which although it remains generally well-respected, is not unscathed from the tumultuous age of migration chaos – is rooted in obsolete and insufficient laws, where violent perpetrators act with relative impunity (especially if they are of minor age), and the dignity of the victims always comes in second hand. When it comes to climate activism, the problem is rather that courts do not treat the perpetrators by the full extent of the law, and are seemingly instead intent on minimising their punishment.
Another consequence for the inability, or unwillingness, for the state to punish activists who blockade important roads, break into industrial or forestry sites, or vandalise property, is that law and order is put on the retreat. Property rights are undermined, and the discretion of a handful of political fanatics controls who is allowed to travel, run a business unimpeded, or exhibit a famous artwork.
One of the complications that this verdict gives rise to, according to the National Museum, is that it will be harder for Swedish institutions to borrow works from foreign museums. What French museum will decide that a Swedish exhibition is safe for their priceless works of art, when climate vandals can spray paint and glue on them with impunity?
Climate ideology is still dominant in the press
It cannot be said for certain that climate ideology is influencing the verdicts on activists in Sweden. The judiciary is independent and the true motivations for any judge must be assumed to be based on professional assessments alone.
But the reporting in the media around this case is peculiar. Notably, the largest Swedish left-wing tabloid Aftonbladet ran a piece that portrayed one of the activists behind the museum attack as a persecuted migrant. The man in question works as a researcher at the University of Lund in nanotechnology, and is of German and Hungarian background. He is, according to Aftonbladet, sentenced previously for involvement in disorderly activism, including a few high-profile stunts that have made national news previously. In the trial of the museum attack, he was under threat of being deported due to not being a Swedish citizen. This was used by Aftonbladet to accentuate his victim status, despite his criminal record.
It is common for climate activists to receive favourable media treatment in Sweden. This cultural phenomenon where institutional sympathies always lean to the left makes it understandable to believe that even courts can fail in their mission to achieve justice, due to political biases. This offers serious resistance to the right-wing government that is trying to restore law and order, and not the least maintain the confidence of the public that the country is heading in the right direction. The impunity of reckless climate activists does not look good on their record.