“Sick” and “Stale” as SD Says No – Weimers Strikes Back on Export of Legally Uncertain Rape Law

The EU Parliament’s committee wants the EU Commission to present a consent-based definition of rape “following the Swedish model”—a clearly Social Democrat-branded initiative. When Sweden Democrats’ Charlie Weimers votes no, the reaction from Swedish opponents is harsh: “sick,” “furious,” “stale,” and “utterly unacceptable.”

Invective replaced argument when SD’s MEP Charlie Weimers was criticized for intending to vote no to a supranational rape law, and explained why—that he takes sexual violence against women very seriously but refuses to export legislation that has been heavily criticized in Sweden for lack of legal certainty.

SD was not alone among Swedish parties in disliking the export of a law that has proven not to fulfill basic demands for legal certainty. The Christian Democrats also signaled reservations when Alice Teodorescu Måwe abstained from the vote.

EU Wants to “Harmonize”—Forcing Countries to Adopt the Swedish Model

By a large majority (75–27), the EU Parliament’s Women’s Committee and the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs voted to urge the EU Commission to put forward a proposal for a supranational EU definition of rape based on absence of consent.

The setup effectively means forcing member states to introduce a legislative model they themselves have decided against—and which in Sweden has faced heavy criticism from legal authorities, particularly because legal certainty risks being undermined when the evidentiary situation is reduced to “word against word,” the presumption of innocence is set aside, and the burden of proof is reversed.

This is also a battle which has already broken down in the Council, when, among others, France and Germany said no to including a consent definition in the EU’s directive on violence against women. But criticism from Swedish Social Democrat and Moderate politicians focused entirely on the Sweden Democrats.

Insults at Weimers

When Charlie Weimers voted no in the committee, he was met by loud condemnation—where the focus was on harsh words rather than the substance of the question. The Moderates’ Arba Kokalari called SD’s no “stale and utterly unacceptable” and further accused that “The Sweden Democrats show time and again how they do not take sexual violence against women seriously.”

Social Democrat Evin Incir went even further, saying what Weimers did was “sick” and that she is “furious” that SD voted against. Weimers was accused of “actively working against women’s rights” and not prioritizing women’s safety.

Weimers’ Defense: “Rape Is Abhorrent—But the Law Must Be Legally Certain”

In a video statement on X, Weimers explains his no by saying that a fundamental requirement for a law is that it treats both women and men in a legally secure way. This requirement, he says, has not been fulfilled by the Swedish consent law that is now proposed for export.

Weimers began personally. As a father of four daughters and one son, he describes rape as “a heinous crime” and says that anyone who rapes should “sit in prison for a long time, much longer than today” and be deported if the person is not Swedish. He also highlights the need for more resources: police, prosecutors, and tools to prevent and punish.

Legal certainty for everyone

That’s why the Sweden Democrats are voting no to the Social Democrats’ European consent law ???? pic.twitter.com/XgxZolFCAO

— Charlie Weimers MEP ???????? (@weimers) February 25, 2026

But exporting the Swedish consent law as an EU norm, in his opinion, risks spreading a system where evidentiary standards are in practice shifted and where young people can be convicted in situations that, according to critics, lack real evidence.

Weimers points out that, even before its introduction in 2018, the National Courts Administration, the Swedish Bar Association, and the Council on Legislation warned that the legislation risked becoming legally uncertain—and reviews from, among others, Public Service confirm those fears: young men, “many barely even adults,” are convicted in word-against-word situations where evidence “in some cases is completely lacking.”

Weimers emphasizes that his no is not a rejection of combatting sexual violence—but a rejection of making a controversial Swedish construction into a supranational norm.

Christian Democrats Also Signal—Teodorescu Måwe Abstains

That it is not, as several critics have described it, about “SD versus the rest” is evident from the fact that Christian Democrat Alice Teodorescu Måwe abstained in the vote.

Alice Teodorescu Måwe. Photo: Instagram.

Within the Swedish conservative bloc there are broader reservations about how the matter is being promoted—and which model is now intended to be extended to the entire EU. Overall, 27 parliamentarians from various countries also voted no.

Social Democrat-Branded Initiative—and a European Prestige Project

Even though it is formally a broad appeal to the EU Commission, the initiative is in reality clearly Social Democrat-branded. Social Democrat representatives have initiated and are vigorously pursuing the issue, demanding that the “Swedish model” become the European standard.

Weimers addresses Social Democrat MEP Evin Incir directly, asking whether she has looked at the investigation he refers to, and whether she has spoken with parents whose sons were convicted even though they credibly insisted that consent had been given. He wonders in his X video if it is more important for the Social Democrats to send the “right” message in Brussels than to seriously address the legal security problems at home in Sweden?

Swedish Criticism in Practice: When the Law Goes Wrong

In Swedish debate about the consent law, criticism has recurrently focused on the same concerns Weimers raises: the risk that the courts’ assessment of evidence slips from objective anchors to subjective assessments of credibility, and that the presumption of innocence is replaced by its opposite. The accused becomes burdened with having to prove that there was consent.

In a series of articles published by Samnytt, concrete examples are highlighted that illustrate the consequences of the consent law for those affected by it.

It concerns “word against word” and weak evidence—stories of young men sentenced to many years in prison without technical evidence and with missing or weak witness testimony, where the court instead attaches decisive weight to a statement being perceived as “coherent” or “experienced personally.”

It concerns warnings from the legal profession—repeated references to key consultative bodies warning even before the law was adopted that legal certainty could be eroded in precisely these kinds of evidentiary situations.

It concerns voices from critics and support networks—inputs from, among others, Kent Ekeroth (SD), discussions from author and social commentator Thérèse Juel, as well as testimonies and mobilization from the organization Mannaminne, about how families feel that evidentiary demands have, in practice, been lowered and that the presumption of innocence has been weakened.

What Happens Now?

The committee’s decision will go before the entire EU Parliament at a meeting in Brussels on March 25–26. If the Parliament votes yes, the recommendation goes to the Commission, which can issue a formal proposal—but is not legally bound to do so.

The Sweden Democrats also voted yes to the consent law when it was unanimously passed by the Parliament in 2018. However, during the preceding debate, the party, together with the Moderates, expressed some criticism of the law’s design.