Civil society, including religious communities

Carl Nordblom (M)

Madam Speaker! For us Moderates, it is a self-evident truth that society is larger than the state and that civil society is of great importance in contributing to a more vibrant, varied and pluralistic everyday life and leisure time for all citizens.

Sports associations, aid organizations, pension organizations, study associations and religious communities are some examples of important parts of civil society that complement and develop the public sector.

Involuntary loneliness, segregation, crime, passivity, and grief and crisis are all areas that civil society is involved in combating every day. I believe that we all here, regardless of party affiliation, can agree that these are examples of how civil society contributes in a positive way.

Swedish civil society stands on two economic legs: one consists of voluntary funding and one of tax-based funding. This combination contributes to stability and security for the organizations operating within civil society. But as for all parts of society that receive support and funds in the form of tax money, a great responsibility is also included. This applies to the authorities that pay out this financial support just as much as to the organizations that receive it.

It is therefore good and pleasing that the committee is clear in its positions that no tax money or state grants shall be paid out to organizations that act in opposition to society's fundamental values.

It is also good and pleasing that the government is now working to return with updated democracy conditions as soon as possible. That tax money is used in a correct way and goes to the right purpose strengthens civil society and supports those parts of civil society that behave themselves.

Madam Speaker! Religious communities are also an important part of our civil society, and we should always be clear that in Sweden, one has the right to their faith. Here, freedom of religion must always stand strong. But for freedom of religion to be able to stand strong and be respected in Sweden, we must also be clear and set boundaries against extremism and separatism.

It is pleasing that we in the committee seem to have a consensus on this important area. I also believe that many of us are pleased that the government will now investigate how foreign funding to religious communities with links to extremism can be prohibited and how the grants to these communities can be reviewed and cut off.

With that said, Madam Speaker, I move for approval of the committee's proposal.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Azadeh Rojhan (S)

Madam Speaker! A gavel falls. A meeting is declared open. The agenda is adopted, and a secretary and a verifier are appointed. The meeting is underway. Perhaps they are sitting in a basement room, perhaps adjacent to a sports hall, perhaps in the forest around a campfire. They are people who have gathered to jointly make decisions, discuss their interests, and make their voices heard.

Meeting - a word that evokes the most boring associations but whose meaning encompasses some of the most important things we have to safeguard: meetings and gatherings between people. It is when people meet and dare to express their thoughts aloud, dare to be critical of one another, or dare to join forces on a specific issue that a sense of belonging and trust arises. And trust is what is required to build a society together, a society where we dare to believe that the best decisions are those we make together. At the intersection between what is best for you and what is best for me, we land on the best compromises.

Madam Speaker! Civil society organizations and popular movements have for over a hundred years enabled meetings between people and slowly but surely built the democratic Sweden. Today's Swedish civil society consists of 244,000 organizations where half of Sweden's adult population works voluntarily and spends an average of 15 hours a month. Here, people meet daily and build further on the trust that is the glue in our democratic society.

When we today discuss policy for civil society and religious communities, it is about how we best create good and long-term conditions for these activities so that more people get the opportunity to organize themselves.

For us Social Democrats, it means that we want to safeguard civil society's independence and uniqueness. We want to see more physical meeting places. We want to increase support for civil society organizations and create good conditions for idea-driven activities to provide publicly funded welfare.

But, Madam Speaker, with civil society's various roles as voice-bearers, as opinion-formers, and as the most important democratic school, great demands also come. It is important that civil society does not become a place where undemocratic forces can act. Politics has, like the sector itself, an important responsibility to ensure that tax funds are not used for activities that can be discriminatory and in conflict with democracy and human rights.

Madam Speaker! One of our fundamental freedoms and rights is freedom of religion and all people's right to practice their religion.

Sweden is today a country with room for many different religious beliefs. The churches and communities, all of which are part of civil society, are natural gathering places for many people throughout life and in both joy and sorrow.

Religious communities bear a common and important responsibility to create respect for the different religious beliefs and to create understanding for religion's place in a democracy and for how religion and all people's equal value can be in harmony.

Regrettably, however, during the past year, a number of revelations have been made showing how a few communities that receive state support have deviated from fundamental democratic principles and human rights. Examples can include communities that have allowed same-sex marriages or that have denied women the right to enter into marriage without a male guardian or to obtain a divorce, as well as free churches that conducted conversion activities for hbtqi persons.

As early as 2015, the red-green government realized that measures were needed to ensure that public funds go to activities that are compatible with society's fundamental values, as they are formulated in the Instrument of Government and in the international conventions on human rights. It was also for this reason that the red-green government in 2016 appointed an inquiry which subsequently resulted in a bill, which was submitted in July 2022. In the bill, a new democratic condition for state support to religious communities and civil society was proposed, and the legislative changes were proposed to enter into force on 1 January 2023.

Regrettably, the current government, in cooperation with the Sweden Democrats, withdrew the bill. If we had had that bill in place and had legislation, we would have had a new democratic condition that would have created better conditions for granting authorities to, according to law, require fulfilled democratic conditions when providing support to religious communities and civil society organizations. The authorities would also have had the possibility to demand reimbursement from operations that do not meet the requirements. The withdrawal of the bill means that religious communities that today do not live up to democratic principles and human rights can continue to receive state grants.

Madam Speaker! Since it is still unclear when new legislation and new democratic conditions will be in place, we Social Democrats in the committee deemed it necessary to submit a committee initiative in order to urge the government to promptly present a proposal. Unfortunately, the government parties M, KD, and L, as well as SD, chose to vote down the proposal.

The government's delay in this matter damages the trust of civil society and religious communities and hinders the possibilities to take measures against radicalization, violent extremism, and restrictions of human rights, as well as the possibilities for democratic development. It is important that the government recognizes the need to promptly introduce a new democratic condition.

Madam Speaker! We Social Democrats will always safeguard all the pillars upon which civil society rests - as a school of democracy, as a bearer of votes, as a place for people's engagement and interests. That is also why it is of great importance for us to secure the sector against dubious forces. We have a strong civil society in Sweden. That also means that we have even greater reason to protect it. The strength of a democracy can be measured as the strength of its civil society. When civil society is attacked or exploited, it is an attack against the very foundation of our democracy.

Madam Speaker! A gavel falls. A meeting is declared closed. A number of decisions have been made. Ideas have been pushed and debated, and challenges and solutions have been identified. The people disperse. And democracy has once again triumphed.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Carl Nordblom (M)

Madam Speaker! I truly appreciate the commitment of the Social Democrats and the member regarding the issue of the democratic conditions and the extremism within religious communities. I believe we have a great consensus on this issue, and we also share the view that it is important that the democratic conditions are put in place as soon as possible.

But the previous Social Democratic government chose to present the bill on the democratic conditions in July 2022, one month before the election. The bill was not sufficiently anchored in civil society or among religious communities and received massive criticism, which caused the current government to withdraw the bill.

I still have to ask myself: Why did the previous Social Democratic government submit this bill only in July 2022, when they had governed the country for eight years and had had the opportunity to act earlier on this issue?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Azadeh Rojhan (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, member, for the question! The reason was that it was a very important issue that needed to be handled. It was out for consultation, and we also had problems with GDPR issues when we worked with the bill. This also needed to be handled, which delayed the government's presentation of the bill.

But then it arrived. It was in place, and there was an opportunity for all parties to unite behind it. Everyone – M, KD, L, and SD – had the chance to submit motions in connection with the bill. Not a single motion has been received. When the opportunity then arises to adopt the bill and move forward with it, the current government chooses instead to withdraw it. And now you are going to talk about how it happened eight years ago. Democratic conditions were present here. The bill had been processed and gone through all referral bodies, and we could have gotten it in place now. But you chose to withdraw it.

I think it becomes very strange that you, when there is a finished product that can be assumed to be implemented now to prevent funds from being paid out to questionable activities, choose not to support this. Instead, the focus falls on why it took so long to produce it. The most important thing was that it was processed in the right way and produced so that we had a decision to take a stand on. You chose to withdraw that, and today we have nothing and do not even know when a new proposal will arrive.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Carl Nordblom (M)

Madam Speaker! I am nevertheless glad that we now have a government in place that does not rush through decisions a month before the election, but actually anchors and gains legitimacy for its decisions and the proposals that are put forward here in the Riksdag - in civil society and in the religious communities that these decisions will affect.

I am completely certain that this issue is being prioritized by the government and that the government will, as soon as possible, return with the democratic conditions in a new edition.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Azadeh Rojhan (S)

Madam Speaker! I do not know if I fully understood the submission. On one hand, the question was why it took so long and why the issue was processed for so long, and on the other hand, it was objected that this had been rushed through.

I am very happy if we soon produce democratic conditions. The most important thing for me, however, is that we get the opportunity to ensure that funds do not go to inaccuracies and are not used in the wrong way. I regret that the government, when we finally had a product in place, chose to withdraw it – and today we do not even know when anything will arrive.

If we all agree that tax revenue should be used in the right way, I think we should also stand up for this when there are proposals that make it possible to prevent tax revenue from being used in an incorrect way, not just in this sector and when it concerns civil society. When we talk about irregularities in how tax revenue is used, I hope to see all the parties in the Riksdag stand behind proposals on how we can stop, for example, welfare crime and the incorrect use of tax revenue in that context.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Vasiliki Tsouplaki (V)

Madam Speaker! The public political debate of recent years regarding civil society and religious communities has focused very much on what has gone wrong – revelations of fraud with grants, extreme views, abuse within the sports movement and so on. It is very important to address systematic errors, but we cannot solely have a debate and a reform agenda based on mistakes made and misuse of grants that occur. We also cannot have legislation based on mistrust and a feeling that civil society organizations are a threat to our democracy and need to be kept short, when in fact it is the opposite.

I therefore intend, as a counterweight, to devote a large part of my speech to describing the important work done by civil society and how civil society is actually the very cornerstone of a living democracy.

To speak in a few minutes about the importance of a strong civil society cannot be done so easily – primarily because the concept itself encompasses such a breadth of organizational forms, activities, worldviews, wills, and purposes, but also because civil society means so many different things for all the millions of inhabitants who are involved in one way or another. It can be about joy, community, shared sorrows, struggle, security, others, and inspiration.

For Vänsterpartiet, it is obvious that we should have good conditions for civil society to operate. It is a central democratic issue that we have a vital association life and that people have the opportunity to organize themselves around common interests. It is through our broad popular movements that previous generations have changed society. It was poverty, hunger and a lack of influence that drove this, but also the insight that it was possible to change if people joined together and that the social order was not given by God, but that people can and have the right to have a dignified future here on earth.

The associations were also, just as they are now, democratic schools where one, for example, learned important processes. But many new forms of organizations have emerged since then. It is important that we from a political standpoint keep up, that our regulatory frameworks and grants are adapted, and that the dialogue is good between the public sector and civil society.

Madam Speaker! I would like to take the opportunity to highlight three groups, shall we say, of organizations as examples of the breadth and the importance of civil society.

Research shows that meeting places constitute a kind of social infrastructure where cohesion can arise. They are important to counteract, for example, polarization. Civil society's ability to create these meetings thus also becomes an important piece of the puzzle in the creation of a democratic state with high trust between citizens and a sense of belonging.

About two weeks ago, the cooperation organization for community centers visited the Riksdag to tell about their activities. It concerns Folkets Hus och Parker, Bygdegårdarnas Riksförbund, and the temperance movement's community centers under the name Våra Gårdar. In many parts of the country, they constitute a central meeting place for the locality. They lend out meeting rooms to other community life. They have stages that enable theater and music performances in smaller towns. They account for a large part of the country's cinemas. They are also meeting places during crises, such as fires and floods.

The recent years have been very tough for civil society as a whole. First, there was the pandemic, which meant cancelled activities and reduced revenues. And then there are today's high electricity prices. It is extremely important that the associations that own their premises – it could be this type of community centers or sports facilities, for example – receive support as soon as possible so that they can cover their electricity costs. The small buffer that remained after the pandemic is exhausted in many places, and we see organizations going bankrupt. The government's tardiness regarding the electricity support is truly problematic and regrettable.

On this Women's Day, I want to take the opportunity to highlight the important work that has been carried out at the country's women's shelters since the 70s. They have saved the lives of many women and supported, comforted, and strengthened women who want to leave a violent or destructive relationship. The collective knowledge gained through all the conversations during these years has been very important regarding the development of knowledge in authorities, such as the police and social services, and has ultimately also influenced the legislation in the area.

What worries me today is that many municipalities are now procuring protected housing, which the non-profit women's shelters have previously been allowed to run. In the procurement, there is competition with profit-driven companies that offer locked housing, which is something completely different. We need to pay attention to this, so that the unique character of civil society can endure.

A third category is the social organizations and religious communities that exist for those who have fallen outside society's safety net. It is they who, on a day like today, open the doors to a warm place to sleep when the snowstorm comes. It is they who, during the recent months, have raised their voices regarding the increased economic vulnerability that more and more people in today's Sweden find themselves in. It is not worthy of a rich country like Sweden that more and more people need to come to a non-profit organization to ask for a food parcel when the money does not last the whole month, but we shall be very grateful that they do that work. They truly make a life-saving contribution when the government does not act more to bring down food prices and lets households go to their knees because of the electricity bills.

Madam Speaker! Vänsterpartiet argues that we must be careful regarding voluntary commitment and ensure that we have simple and clear regulations. Good support from the granting authority is needed so that it is easy to do the right thing. There should be a way into the municipalities for those seeking grants there and long-term organizational grants, as opposed to project grants, which have been dominant for many years.

In a democracy that functions well, associations are also carriers of voices. They gather experiences and opinions from their members and can, with collective strength, enter into the political conversation. They function as opinion leaders and exert pressure on political power.

A shrinking economic space for association life, which several of the Tidö parties have flagged, thus implies not only fewer activities but also a worsened situation for a developing public debate and that fewer voices will be heard in, for example, referral rounds before legislation.

We from Vänsterpartiet propose instead that several categories of associations should receive increased support, for example the community centers and the non-profit cultural organizations, which are within the cultural committee's area of responsibility. We also monitor that regulations within other committees' areas of responsibility take into account civil society's conditions. It can involve different regulations regarding taxes and procurement issues and so on, as I have mentioned.

We see something that has happened recently. The association life has other sources of income. If one does not just want to become dependent on the public grants, there are many side activities one can have. It concerns, for example, the public benefit lotteries, where it has become much tougher in recent years. It is also something that we need to monitor, so that one is not fully dependent on only the public supports.

With that said, Madam Speaker, I would like to support the committee's proposal for a decision. We have no reservations regarding this report.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Robert Hannah (L)

Madam Speaker! It is easy to talk about civil society. It is harder to talk about what is actually being cheated with. It is obvious when it comes to Vänsterpartiet that one always wants to talk about the good and not about the bad, and furthermore, that one wants to continue supporting the bad.

In almost every city, almost every municipality, almost every region and even here in the Swedish Riksdag, Vänsterpartiet is always against the fact that one should conduct an audit and against the fact that one should stop giving money to organizations that can in some way be linked to fraud, radicalization etcetera.

I would very much like to hear the members answer, among other things, the question regarding the sports club AIF Kista, which has received very large sports grants. It has been clear that they have been used for fraud. Trips to Gothenburg have been made, among other things. The chairman has been a member of Vänsterpartiet, and Vänsterpartiet has wanted to prevent the payments from being stopped and wanted to prevent an in-depth review of the association. Therefore, I would very much like to hear: What is Vänsterpartiet's view on fraud with civil society funds - to sports and to civil society in general?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Vasiliki Tsouplaki (V)

Madam Speaker! I believe we must stick to what is the responsibility of the Riksdag. I do not have the opportunity to comment on the actions of individual municipal politicians. I am not familiar with the specific example that the member is raising.

I also do not recognize the image of Vänsterpartiet in any way encouraging or being positive towards the occurrence of cheating. Of course, it is very important that we have clear conditions. It must be important how one follows up. One must be able to report back on how one has used their funds. What I want to point out is that this occurs when it concerns the overwhelming majority of all these millions of volunteers who make a contribution every day. We heard earlier here that 15 hours a month is the average for voluntary engagement in Sweden.

I do not want it to be made invisible in the political conversation. That was what I was trying to convey. There is constant talk about the tiny, tiny part that engages in fraud. It should be reported to the police if one uses public grants in a way that is not permitted. If, in addition, one uses the funds to engage in some form of criminality, as it actually has been a question of in some of these cases, it is a police matter. Of course, it should be curbed. We must have clear conditions. We shall have democratic conditions that show what we stand for. It must be clear for the organization seeking funds what is required.

What I want to point out is that it needs to be a generous and yet trust-based system because civil society consists of voluntary forces. We cannot demand overly extensive things if we are also to be able to maintain the voluntary commitment that drives people. We must therefore make it easy to do the right thing. That was what I tried to convey in my speech.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Robert Hannah (L)

Madam Speaker! It must also be easy to reach those who cheat. And there is a very strong history of Vänsterpartiet actually being the party in this Riksdag that always tries to continue providing grants to association activities, sports activities, and civil society activities.

Let me take another example. Ibn Rushds activity in Gothenburg was stopped during the last parliamentary term. At that time, your party colleagues, Vasiliki Tsouplaki, called it racist and Islamophobic to stop it.

At the same time, new reports have emerged that clearly link Ibn Rushd to the Muslim Brotherhood. Nevertheless, the Left Party now wants to demand once again that Ibn Rushd should continue to receive funds.

Does the parliamentary party Vänsterpartiet consider Ibn Rushd to be an appropriate organization to receive funds? Are you in favor of an in-depth review of this folk high school organization?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Vasiliki Tsouplaki (V)

Madam Speaker! I think there are some sweeping accusations being made against me, against my party, and against other party representatives who do not have the opportunity to be here to explain and defend themselves. I must say that I think it is unfortunate that the vice chairman of the Cultural Committee expresses himself in that way.

It is of course important that there is evidence if one is to take back a grant. It must be clear what is required and what one must report to be approved. Both before one is to receive and after one has received a grant, one should be able to show what one has used the money for. It is a self-evident matter in every serious organization. Of course, it is also the Left Party's starting point in this issue.

When it comes to Ibn Rushd, it was a few years ago that primarily the Sverigedemokraterna submitted these types of motions, including in the municipality where I was active. We see a shift in the political conversation when more and more parties, for example the Liberalerna, increasingly lean into these types of sweeping accusations against Muslim organizations. I regret that the Liberalerna are now joining this slippery slope. It is perhaps what the Vänsterpartiet is turning against, i.e., sweeping accusations for which there is no basis.

When it comes to Ibn Rushd specifically, I cannot account for all the associations that receive support through this study association. It is different associations that are affiliated. My party is, for example, affiliated with ABF for our study circles. I cannot, of course, account for all the organizations that receive grants through Ibn Rushd.

What is clear is that reviews of Ibn Rushd have been carried out on behalf of the Folkbildningsrådet, and it is they who distribute the funds. In that case, we as a parliamentary party must rely on the underlying data that Folkbildningsrådet is responsible for producing in this instance when they distribute grants. I find it very difficult to answer anything else here today.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Jonas Andersson (SD)

Madam Speaker! Today we are therefore debating the Culture Committee's report on civil society, including religious communities. I naturally stand behind all the Sweden Democrat reservations in the report, but for the sake of time, I choose to move for approval of only reservation 1.

It is an important debate we have here today regarding civil society. There are almost infinitely many positive examples to highlight of how important civil society can be for people and for our country's well-being. Civil society creates so many values for the Swedish people. It builds community, knowledge, and much more. As legislators, it is important to safeguard and create good conditions for civil society. When it comes to how this is then carried out, we parties make slightly different priorities.

In addition to us Sweden Democrats submitting our own proposals in motions in the Riksdag, which are followed up in reservations, we also work on civil society issues with the government parties within the framework of the Tidö Agreement. It has not been long since the new government took office. But the Sweden Democrats and the government parties have already managed to act together on several points regarding civil society. One such important point concerns the assignment to Statskontoret a few months ago to map out and analyze how a number of agencies work to ensure correct payments to legal entities, such as civil society organizations. The assignment covers agencies and organizations with government mandates linked to civil society, such as the Folkbildningsrådet, the Agency for Youth and Civil Society Affairs, MUCF, as well as the Swedish Sports Confederation.

Another important point that we Tidö parties have handled together in the civil society area, after years of red-green laxity and nonchalance, concerns the guidelines for the Folkbildningsrådet and the regulatory letter for the grant in the area. We are making a proper tightening regarding the control and follow-up of the state grant. It is completely necessary after all the problems we have seen over the years. That it is tightened so significantly is something that the Sverigedemokraterna have had a decisive influence over.

Madam Speaker! Another much-needed proposal that the Sweden Democrats have motioned and which is addressed in this committee report concerns the problem with organizations that facilitate the stay of illegal immigrants in Sweden. We propose that such organizations should not be able to receive publicly funded support.

An example of this being a problem was something we saw in May 2020, during the previous red-green government. At that time, it was communicated at a press conference that they wanted to invest millions of kronor in civil society during the corona crisis, and they had illegal immigrants as an explicit target group for this investment.

Anyone listening to this debate will surely think that it should be a self-evident matter that organizations that cement the shadow society and the crime that thrives there in various ways should not receive a single krona of the taxpayers' money. It is truly foolish and contradictory that we in Sweden, on the one hand, have state agencies such as the police that work to ensure that illegal migrants leave the country, but on the other hand, via the state, pay out money to civil society organizations to facilitate for illegal immigrants to stay. It is actually striking that the Sverigedemokraterna is the only party that has chosen to stand behind this proposal today.

Madam Speaker! Recently, several parties that previously sat very quietly in the benches have now somewhat begun to criticize individual cases where state subsidies go to Islamism in civil society. There has, as I perceive it, been a broad consensus among the parties in the Culture Committee that it is very problematic that individual congregations, for example those located in mosques with links to the Iranian regime, receive state subsidies. And this consensus is positive, I think.

As recently as yesterday, the Culture Committee was visited by the Security Service during a committee meeting, and they accounted there for their work regarding violent extremism linked to these types of issues.

But if one takes a stand in individual highlighted cases regarding state grants to problematic organizations in civil society, while at the same time having party friends in municipalities all over the country who repeatedly vote yes to constructing mosque buildings and schools linked to Islamism, how credible is one then? That is actually the case regarding most parties in this chamber. I regret that there is not the same broad consensus in this chamber to fully take up the fight against Islamism. In that regard, the Sweden Democrats still stand largely alone.

(Applause)

In this speech, Runar Filper and Leonid Yurkovskiy (both SD) agreed.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Roland Utbult (KD)

Madam Speaker! I am a child of a popular movement called the free church. Throughout my entire life, my values and other things have been shaped by the upbringing I had there. Sometimes one doubts, sometimes one wonders where one is headed and so on. But these basic values have always existed in this popular movement which actually participated in building democracy here in Sweden. I want to say this and highlight the immense importance of civil society, and I want to include the popular movements, the aid organizations, the churches, and sports in this.

It is incredibly important with a dialogue between the public sector and civil society. There are great concerns regarding the granting of grants, with fraud that is completely unacceptable. But we must not forget civil society's crucial importance for society's development. Let us safeguard this also moving forward! We cannot manage the challenges without help from civil society.

I vote in favor of the committee's proposal for a decision and for the rejection of all motions.

I saw a segment on TV and shuddered. It was a man standing at the grave of his life partner, who had passed away. The daughter stood behind and listened when the man said: Why were we so lonely? The daughter told that she froze and realized what reality her parents had lived in. Despite having had each other, they had been lonely.

The negative consequences of loneliness affect all age groups. We have all felt lonely. We have been voluntarily lonely, which can be wonderful, but involuntary loneliness is not pleasant; it is difficult. This applies particularly to the very elderly. Four out of ten women over 85 years old, and almost every third man, consider that they are troubled by loneliness and isolation.

Many also find it difficult to find their way back to community and activities after the long period of isolation that the covid-19 pandemic entailed. I realize, therefore, what it means to have a civil society behind you, regardless of whether you grow up with it or end up in it.

The government is now investing 145 million kronor so that the country's municipalities shall carry out measures to prevent and counteract loneliness, primarily among elderly people. It is about carrying out outreach activities where people who otherwise would not have sought support can be reached and where, for example, loneliness issues and other health-related conditions can be identified. It is not the conversations themselves that are to constitute the measure against loneliness, but the activities and communities that they result in.

When loneliness is not self-chosen and continues for a long period, it affects not only mental well-being but also the physical. The body reacts to loneliness. Loneliness causes a chronic stress that impairs the immune system, and the risk of cardiovascular disease, dementia, and depression increases. These are not pleasant terms I am bringing up here, but it is the reality. Involuntary loneliness can, in the long run, be as dangerous as smoking 15 cigarettes a day, it is said.

Breaking one's own loneliness can be difficult, and loneliness can sometimes be surrounded by feelings of stigma. Therefore, an outreach activity is needed where we can reach those people who otherwise would not have sought support. It is about being able to identify, for example, loneliness issues and other health-related conditions.

At the same time, politicians' opportunities are limited in this area. We all have a responsibility as human beings to break involuntary loneliness. Sometimes one can make a big difference with relatively simple means, such as making that call or just asking how someone is doing. These are small steps on the way towards a warmer society with more community.

Mr. Speaker! Civil society makes great contributions to our society, not least our religious communities. They receive funds from the state to contribute when it comes to existential health, hospital chaplains, end-of-life care, homelessness and other matters.

For ten years at the beginning of the 2000s, I worked at Göteborgs Räddningsmission, which for decades had taken in homeless people in Gothenburg. I learned a deep respect for people who are suffering and that we should all meet at eye level. Speaking of meeting, we asked a person there what he wished for when he met people. One might think that he wished for money or something like that. "That they say hello," he said.

The contributions from civil organizations are significant, and without these – often voluntary – contributions, we cannot manage the challenges in society's development. Therefore, there was a need for the grant-giving that is being addressed here today. The Government sets democratic conditions in the grant-giving to civil society, where religious communities are also included. Since the democratic conditions that exist today have been criticized, the previous government produced a bill that was withdrawn by the new government. There were several deficiencies in the previous bill.

One such criticized part was this with representative responsibility. It meant that the entire community was affected if a person said or did something foolish, and the money for the entire community was withdrawn. There was a possibility to escape this, and that was for the community to distance itself from the person. Then the grants could be retained.

The principle of representative responsibility was actually tricky, which was one of the reasons it was withdrawn. It may come back in some form – it is not impossible – but in that case, it will be refined and skillfully crafted, so to speak. Here, the state truly showed that it wanted to be involved in deciding over people's actions.

What is happening now is that new directives are to be developed. The government will therefore return with new democratic conditions. It has been clear that the question of a ban on foreign funding of religious communities where there is a connection to extremism and violence-promoting Islamism shall be investigated. There are also other threats in society, shall we say.

Mr. Speaker! The reintroduction of the tax deduction for donations to non-profit activities also contributes, according to the committee, to better conditions for civil society and provides greater opportunities for independence. In 2019, the tax deduction for donations to non-profit activities was reintroduced, and it has been developed since it previously existed. At that time, one could give 6,000 kronor and get 1,500 kronor back in tax for what had been given. Now it is up to 12,000 kronor, and then one gets back 3,000.

The vast majority give without any thought of tax relief, don't they? But the effect is that it increases the contributions from civil society through the organizations that receive this, and that is incredibly important. It increases the possibilities to create a warmer society for us all where the involuntary loneliness among people is minimized.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Anne-Li Sjölund (C)

Mr. Speaker! I would like to begin by expressing my support for the Center Party's reservation 12.

Civil society's work plays a very important role for a positive social development in general; there is no doubt about this. This applies in particular in rural areas and in smaller towns where civil society, through associations and communities, takes a great responsibility for the area's development.

The meeting places that voluntary organizations create are broader and at the same time deeper than just the specific mission they have taken upon themselves. Civil society is often quick to be on the spot when a need arises for organized cooperation between people. It becomes extra clear now when the crisis and the war are in our vicinity - Russia's attack against Ukraine and the corona pandemic put their finger on it. Civil society's associations and organizations play a major role for people's well-being.

Civil society and association life are a large part of many people's lives and give people the opportunity to engage together for various issues and interests. It can be about engagement for women's rights, against honor oppression, against mental ill-health, for children's sports, or for a better environment. It can also just be about it being fun.

Feeling a sense of belonging and doing something meaningful for one's home region or for one's fellow human beings is strengthening and educational. It is important for individuals who can contribute to something they are passionate about and, of course, also for those who take part in the activities of organizations and associations. It matters in society at large.

There are many things that need to work together. For example, there must be access to meeting premises at a reasonable cost, even in cities, to enable these types of activities. Therefore, the public sector at all levels needs to get better at making their premises available for association life at times that are otherwise unused. We also need to improve the opportunities for civil society to perform community initiatives. One way to do this is to acquire better knowledge about the challenges that exist in society. Here, the public sector needs to get better at inviting people to dialogue and cooperation.

We in the Center Party want to see a civil society that is given better conditions for its activities and its social engagement than what applies today. Just something like opening a bank account is not so simple for a small association, and if one is paid in cash in some way, it becomes even more difficult.

When a non-profit organization interacts with the public sector in connection with social initiatives, difficulties often arise because there are no clear models, similar to models for procurement, to use in such a collaboration. Therefore, we in Centerpartiet want to see that models are developed for a partnership between non-profit organizations and the public sector. An investigation should be conducted with the aim of clarifying and strengthening the unique character of civil society and creating reasonable regulatory frameworks for the activities.

There are areas where activities have traditionally been association-driven and which have received new actors in the form of entrepreneurs. This can involve the reuse of products or sports events. This has resulted in a market emerging where there previously was none. It has created difficulties for those who work voluntarily, for example when a municipality demands market rent to let an association use the land. This risks eroding the right of associations.

Mr. Speaker! It is time for an inquiry into association law to clarify and strengthen the distinct character of civil society and create reasonable regulatory frameworks for the activities. This should include the question of extending the rule on half a price base amount, which applies to sports associations, to also cover other non-profit associations.

Introducing a possibility for non-profit associations to smooth out income between different tax years, in a similar way as an author's account allows, would also be good. It would make it easier for those who have uneven incomes, for example, high incomes from events, lotteries or the like one year and lower incomes the next year. This happened many times during the corona pandemic. It would create greater security for associations and a better possibility to continue carrying out activities even during years with temporarily lower incomes.

Mr. Speaker! Engagement in association life and civil society organizations also contributes to community and experience in associations. Here we learn democracy. Just today, on International Women's Day, we turn the spotlight on all those associations and organizations that work for an equal and just society. If anything, that is important for democracy.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Robert Hannah (L)

Mr. Speaker! To begin with, the Liberals demand approval of the proposal in the report and rejection of all reservations.

Civil society is the foundation for the society and the democracy that we live in. It was liberals within churches and temperance movements, in folk high schools and within academia who were involved in creating our democracy. Often it occurred in conflict with the state power that, through repressive means, wanted to limit people's freedom. It is still the case that it is individuals together in various sports clubs, political parties, charitable organizations, outdoor organizations, youth organizations, among others, who are the enablers of the welfare society and democracy.

It is also so - regardless of what the left-wing parties believe and claim - that civil society is not primarily financed by taxpayers and the cultural heritage budget, but through voluntary forces, entrepreneurs, and private individuals who pay for cultural, sports, and leisure activities. The new bourgeois government intends to focus on strengthening the free and independent civil society.

Mr. Speaker! Not a single tax crown shall go to extremism. Unfortunately, today we see a problem with the support that the state pays out to civil society that can no longer be swept under the rug. The new bourgeois government will also not sweep any problems under the rug, but it will act.

Research was recently released from Lund University and the researcher Sameh Egyptson which showed that Islamist separatism, by organizing here in Sweden completely legally and according to their rights, has succeeded in taking a share of the taxpayers' support for civil society. Swedish tax money that should have gone to folk education, homework help, community groups and cultural projects has instead gone to Quran schools, extremely homophobic speakers and communities that demand guardians for women, refuse divorce for women or engage in pleasure marriages. Tax funds for civil society have been funneled further to violence-promoting organizations around the world. It is totally unacceptable.

The enormous exclusion we have in Sweden is an effect of the left's demand-free integration policy and that for years one has turned a blind eye to the fact that a group with extreme views has gained access to tax money that should have gone to the good civil society.

Mr. Speaker! Exclusion in Sweden is not just about economy and jobs. It is primarily about an emotional and cultural exclusion that we must address. It is pleasing that Brå last week released a report pointing out that this is the basis for exclusion and gang crime.

When we have financed radical organizations with tax money, they have also been allowed to influence our youth, especially in our vulnerable areas. This has, of course, limited their freedom, just as the state did in the past - before Sweden became a democracy - limited people's freedom.

Too many young people with a foreign background do not feel like Swedes today. They do not experience themselves as being part of the building of society here. They also do not get access to our most important texts. A fundamental mission for the bourgeois government is to ensure that these young people get access to all of this in the future.

Mr. Speaker! That extremism has gained a foothold in Sweden is not due to immigration; I say this almost every time I speak lately to make it clear. The Swedes who have an Iranian background are proof of this. They are very successful here, just like many other groups.

Radical Islamism has grown due to a cowardice when it comes to combating separatism. It has been due to our lack of insight that our common freedom is built on the existence of common and fundamental democratic values such as gender equality, a common legislation that we all follow - not honor laws - and a common language that we can all use to speak to one another, which in our case is the Swedish language. The state shall also not give a single tax crown to the enemies of democracy.

The Liberals are proud that the government during this mandate period will reform the support that goes to non-formal education and strengthen the democratic requirements for economic grants. At the same time, support will be provided to sports in vulnerable areas and a leisure card for young people so that they can engage in civil society, based on a proposal from the Christian Democrats. Why should the support go to the young people themselves? The Social Democrats argue that it might instead go through the child benefit, but then the money will not go to these specific young people personally. I also know that we have withdrawn the legislation that the Social Democrats had submitted just before the election. I can also guarantee that it will return in an even stronger and better version that is more predictable and clear for civil society. In the future, not a single tax crown shall go to fraudsters, scammers, or extremists.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, today on International Women's Day, I want to remind of the Iranian women's struggle for freedom and democracy: Zan, zendegi, azadi! Woman, life, freedom!

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Jan Riise (MP)

Mr. Speaker! My party colleague Ulrika Westerlund just explained that Amanda Lind is traveling and has been replaced by not one but two people, and the other is me.

Sweden's popular movements and civil society contribute to democracy, public health, integration, premises to meet in, a rich cultural life, a living countryside and a meaningful leisure time for children and young people - to mention just a few examples. In the association life and civil society, people with vastly different backgrounds and circumstances meet and get the opportunity to grow and improve their local community while practicing democratic decision-making.

Miljöpartiet wants to provide the organizations of democratic civil society with even better conditions through strengthened and long-term support, clear and sharpened democratic conditions, as well as reduced red tape - all to release the power that is created when people work together, for the common good.

In our budget motion for 2023, we identified the democratic civil society as a priority. We want to move away from temporary initiatives and project funding and instead invest in things that strengthen the conditions in the long term. It is also important for the recovery after the pandemic. We need more meeting places and more activities where we meet and do things together - not fewer.

Mr. Speaker! For civil society, cumbersome administration means that many may hesitate to take on positions of trust. It risks consuming resources unnecessarily. It is a reason to want to move away from too much project funding and instead transition to more long-term operational funding. Having to apply for new funds every year creates both complications and great uncertainty in the planning conditions. It should be possible to transition to more multi-year operational funding to a greater extent without compromising on control and follow-up.

A review should also be conducted to see if the boundaries between different grant regulations can be harmonized in order to facilitate life for associations. In this context, I shall also point out that we, among these organizations, naturally very much would like to see that many of the women's shelters that are currently run by voluntary efforts can be eligible for that type of longer-term support.

It is also worth mentioning, even though it is not something handled in this report, that we want to level the tax differences between sports and the rest of the leader-led civil society when it comes to social security contributions. Today, there is an exception in the Social Security Contributions Act which means that organizations that are members of the Swedish Sports Confederation can engage leaders for up to half a base amount without having to pay social security contributions for the leader's compensation.

This exception does not apply to outdoor organizations that are not members of RF or for the youth organizations, which coordinate and carry out similar leader-led activities. This should be rectified immediately; it would facilitate association life and create better opportunities for leisure activities, not least for children and young people, and at a lower cost.

We also think it was good that the government took the issue of the internal VAT further, but we are, for large parts of the association life, uncertain whether the measure is sufficient.

Mr. Speaker! Miljöpartiet has, in government, worked on the development of new democratic conditions for civil society. We are, like other parties in the Riksdag, keen that new legislation is put in place that fulfills its purpose – that no anti-democratic activities shall be granted public support – while at the same time the legislation must be able to be applied by the broad, democratic civil society.

The previous S-government submitted a bill last summer which has been partially criticized by civil society as it risks having disproportionate consequences in certain respects, and there is a risk of ambiguity in the implementation. The current government has withdrawn the bill for a renewed process – this has been mentioned by several speakers already. Miljöpartiet has advocated that some minor adjustments be made to the withdrawn bill in order, partly to secure applicability for civil society, and partly to broaden the ban against so-called conversion attempts to also include adults. We advocate that the government intensifies the dialogue with civil society before the finalization of the bill.

We also want to emphasize the importance of the government taking forward the proposal raised by Säpo to establish a support function for granting authorities, which we in the S-MP government took forward and gave as a supplementary directive to the then ongoing investigation on personal data management to investigate. Säpo has emphasized that this is important so that granting authorities as well as municipalities and regions can receive the necessary support. The investigation presented a proposal in early 2022 which was also referred. We hope that the new government will present proposals in this area as soon as possible.

Mr. Speaker! Neither unclear rules, short-sighted politics nor undemocratic actors shall stand in the way of a strong and directed civic life throughout the country.

I naturally stand behind all of the Miljöpartiet's reservations, but for the sake of time, I move for approval only of reservation 2, which concerns support for and expanded cooperation with civil society, under point 1.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Azadeh Rojhan (S)

Civil society, including religious communities

Mr. Speaker! It was also that matter regarding the reservations! I stand behind all of the Social Democrats' reservations, but for the sake of time, I move for approval of only reservation 13.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(Decisions were made under § 21.)

Cultural heritage issues

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)