> They explain it in the next sentence: "We strongly oppose rhetoric that threatens other human rights and freedoms."

That's not an explanation. I don't think it's too much of an exaggeration to say everyone supports "human rights and freedoms," they just disagree on what those are.

> They explain it in the next sentence: "We strongly oppose rhetoric that threatens other human rights and freedoms."

Except they are clearly taking a stance in opposition to Swedes' freedom to decide how they want their country to be governed.

Why are they opposing the mere rhetoric and not the ideas themselves? You either support free speech unreservedly, including for your political opposites, or you don't.