State support for religious communities and civil society

Jonas Andersson (SD)

Madam Speaker! Today we are debating the Culture Committee's report on state support to religious communities and civil society, and I would first like to move for the approval of the committee's proposed decision.

A particular focus of the bill that we are debating today is the proposal regarding democratic conditions for state grants to civil society. The Sweden Democrats have been involved in negotiating the bill together with the government. It is very pleasing that it now lies on the Riksdag's table so that we can get better tools to push back Islamists and other extremists who exploit association life to get access to taxpayers' money.

The positive significance of civil society for Sweden is enormous, almost immeasurably important. At the same time, it is crucial that taxpayers' money in the form of state grants goes to the right purposes. If state grants go to Islamists, organized crime, or other destructive forces, it will damage the public's trust in both the state and civil society. Therefore, sharp democratic conditions are needed.

The proposal in the bill is to introduce democratic conditions for support from the General Inheritance Fund and for support to religious communities. For state grants governed by ordinances and which concern other parts of civil society, for example folkbildningen, the idea is that identical democratic conditions shall be introduced in the relevant ordinances.

Madam Speaker! In 2022, the then Social Democratic government submitted a proposition on democratic conditions for state grants to civil society. It was fundamentally an initiative that we Sverigedemokrater welcomed, but in several parts, the proposal was unclear or too weak.

As is known, the Social Democrats lost government power, and the Tidö parties took over. The Social Democrats' deficient bill was then withdrawn, and negotiations on a new updated proposal took place. The Sweden Democrats' entry into this from day one has been to plug holes and introduce sharper democratic conditions, in relation to the original proposal. The bill that now lies on the Riksdag's table is also very much clearer and sharper on several points than the original proposal.

Madam Speaker! Let me mention some points where the bill being treated in today's committee report is a sharper product than the original.

In the new bill, clear examples are given of what can be considered a violation of the democratic conditions for receiving state grants, in order to facilitate the assessment for our authorities. One example taken up in the bill is that an organization calls for parallel law enforcement. Advocating for Sharia laws could be such a thing. Another example taken up is that one opposes the implementation of free elections.

Another clarification made in the new bill compared to the old one is that it is now established that collusion with extremism is also a violation of democratic conditions. Providing premises to extremists is highlighted as an example of such collusion.

In the new bill, the requirement is set that registered religious communities must have 2,500 served to be eligible for state grants. In the previous Social Democratic proposal, it was 1,000 served that applied. The purpose of the higher number, as the Sverigedemokraterna see it, is to counter that extreme communities consisting of, for example, radical Islamists receive a seal of approval and are welcomed into the fold, because that is not what we want. It is easier for a community to gather 1,000 served than 2,500. That is where we see the advantage.

In the new bill, the wording is also clearer regarding the introduction of uniform democratic conditions in the regulations governing state grants to civil society. In the original Social Democratic proposal, it reads that the democratic conditions introduced in the regulations shall "substantially" be "identical" to those that are to apply for the General Inheritance Fund. In the Tidö parties' proposal, the wording "substantially" is not included, but there it is clear that it is "identical" that applies. This is important to ensure uniform democratic conditions, we believe.

That, for example, the Islamist study association Ibn Rushd should be deprived of state grants should, in my opinion, be a given when the new democratic conditions are introduced, because several examples cited in the bill regarding violations of democratic conditions are such as Ibn Rushd repeatedly engages in.

Madam Speaker! I note that the Social Democrats are dissatisfied that the Sweden Democrats and the government withdrew the previous bill, which came from the own party when they were in government. In a specific statement in the committee report, it is written, among other things: "The withdrawal of the bill has meant that, among others, religious communities that do not live up to democratic principles and human rights have been able to continue receiving state subsidies."

Honestly - are the Social Democrats not ashamed of this extreme hypocrisy? Without your policies and without you in government over the last decades, there wouldn't even have been any ground for Islamism in Sweden at all, or for that matter, for the heavy organized crime that day in and day out contributes to explosions and shootings all over Sweden. There was a Sweden where it wasn't even in people's wildest imagination conceivable with the enormous problems we see today with Islamists and gang criminals. This Sweden is only a generation away, one must remember.

Today's Sweden demands extensive democratic conditions and control systems for state subsidies and constantly demands new, tougher law enforcement measures and so on. This is due to how the Social Democrats and some other parties have shattered trust and divided our society, not least through a frantic migration policy but also through coddling Islamists and criminals.

Now, the Social Democrats actually have the audacity to complain that the Sweden Democrats and the government need a little more time to produce a better bill than the insufficient one the man himself placed on the floor of the Riksdag. You could have at least cleaned up a bit after your own policy by presenting a better bill from the start. But even that you failed to do.

Madam Speaker! With the new democratic conditions being introduced as a result of today's proposition being decided by the Riksdag, we will have much better opportunities to ensure that state grants to civil society go to what they are intended for. But those who want to abuse the state grant system and our systems are persistent and inventive. The Sweden Democrats are therefore, if necessary, naturally ready to present more proposals in the future to ensure our objective that not a single krona should end up in the pockets of Islamists, criminals, or other destructive forces.

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

Mats Berglund (MP)

Madam Speaker! We are holding this debate on the occasion of a government bill entitled State support to religious communities and civil society - uniform and legally secure conditions. The background to the bill is primarily three inquiries that in different ways address the conditions for support to civil society and religious communities. In the summer of 2022, the then Social Democratic government submitted a bill in the matter. It was withdrawn by the current Tidö government after the election. It is that matter that is now back as a somewhat reformulated bill.

Swedish civil society and the association life, with voluntary organizations, idea-based organizations, sports clubs and popular movements where people with different backgrounds, circumstances and interests organize themselves and do things together, but also the religious denominations, constitute a fundamental pillar in Swedish democracy. Over six million people, spread across the entire country, engage in one way or another. It concerns culture, sports, education, adult education, outdoor life or faith. It is a glue that holds society together, creates meaning and trust and not least promotes public health.

In this way, one can continue to count up the enormous values for society, the economy, public health, trust, and democracy that civil society and religious communities bring with them. Doing things together, creating together, is one of the most fundamental things about us humans.

All these positive values are also the reason why the state, the common good, but also other parts of the public sector, allocate resources to promote civil society and religious communities. We have a number of governing documents to protect these communities, not least in our constitutions. Freedom of association and freedom of assembly, but also freedom of expression, freedom of demonstration and, of course, freedom of religion, are all parts of the fundamental freedoms and rights in accordance with the Instrument of Government, for which we celebrate the 50th anniversary this year.

But we also allocate joint financial resources to the association life, civil society, and religious communities. The matter we are debating today concerns the distribution of these resources and the creation of clearer rules and conditions for the distribution. We want state support to go to our democratic actors, organizations, and associations. But – and this is important – not a single crown shall go to anti-democratic actors, to those who want to undermine what we have built together.

Madam Speaker! The Government proposes a series of measures in the bill. It concerns a new law on state grants to religious communities that replaces the old law, new democratic conditions for the state support, and furthermore a new regulation in the law on the processing of personal data. I will primarily address the first two parts. The Green Party is basically positive towards the bill, but we see a number of problems. We have noted those problems in a follow-up motion which is addressed in the committee report.

Madam Speaker! The new law on state grants to religious communities contains some definitions. Among others is the concept of "served". Served are members of religious communities or persons who with some regularity participate in the religious community's activities in some way.

In the new conditions for state aid, which require a certain size and stability of the communities in order for them to receive aid, a reduction from 3,000 to 2,500 served is proposed as the minimum to qualify for aid. But both the investigation and the previous Social Democratic proposition proposed a reduction down to 1,000 served. The reduction was partially justified by that the aid shall no longer go to so-called cooperation bodies, where several communities join together. The aid should instead go directly to the individual communities, which we also think is reasonable.

When the bill now proposes 2,500 served and at the same time removes the possibility of support for the cooperation bodies, some smaller religious communities will probably lose their support and be affected in a way we believe to be unfortunate. Miljöpartiet therefore argues that the limit should be at 1,000 served, as the investigation suggests. This can be compared with other state supports. For example, exactly 1,000 members are required for support for children's and youth organizations and 500 members for state grants to disability organizations.

Madam Speaker! The second part of the bill concerns the new democratic conditions and relates to state support and grants regulated by law. It concerns support to religious communities, support from the General Inheritance Fund, and support and grants to other civil society.

In addition to these legally regulated supports, there is a whole host of grants and subsidies where the distribution is governed in other ways, via authorities and other organizations. We believe that the new democratic conditions should also be able to be applied there. This concerns, for example, the support for folkbildningen (the people's education), where the investigation submitted to the government the other day proposes exactly this.

The new democratic conditions proposed by the Democratic Conditions Inquiry and which are now included in the bill concern that state aid shall not be granted if the organization or representatives of the organization exercise violence, coercion or threats, discriminate against certain persons or groups, urge or defend this type of behavior or in general oppose the democratic system of government. These criteria shall also apply to the organizations' potential partners.

It is good that we now get clarity on the democratic conditions so that we get tools to seriously sort among the associations and organizations that receive support. Undemocratic actors shall not have a single penny. Again, this is of course extremely important.

We in Miljöpartiet are therefore positive towards the conditions, but we also see some parts that need to be adjusted, and we have four points in our reservation regarding this.

Firstly, we argue that the definition of the concept representative of an organization has become too broad in the bill. If a representative violates the democratic conditions, there is a risk that support will be withdrawn for the entire organization, and even though the bill has narrowed the definition slightly since before, we argue that further clarifications are needed.

Secondly, so-called conversion attempts against young hbtqi persons through pressure or coercion are specified as an example of actions that shall conflict with the democratic criteria. That is obviously good. However, we do not understand why only young people should be included. This type of violation of hbtqi persons' rights cannot be accepted at all, regardless of age. Adults should also be included.

The third point concerns violent extremism. Here, we would like to see that civil society is involved in a clearer way in the work against violent extremism. It is good that the government has previously indicated that a central support function shall be established under the Crime Prevention Council. This is something that Miljöpartiet has pushed for for a long time. But we mean that even civil society must be involved, because that is where the competence and knowledge are.

For the fourth, we underline the importance of the new legislation, with the new definitions, being kept alive and being able to be adjusted if necessary. How this will work will be determined in the application and in the practice that is developed, and therefore we urge the government to, in cooperation with civil society, carry out a serious and thorough follow-up and evaluation. We have proposals for that in our reservation.

Madam Speaker! Miljöpartiet has reservations in all these parts. I naturally stand behind all the reservations but move for approval only to reservation 1.

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

Carl Nordblom (M)

Madam Speaker! The Moderate-led government is now making it harder for extremists, criminals and other undemocratic forces to profit from our common tax funds.

During the election campaign, we promised to bring order and clarity to Sweden and the Swedish economy. That our collective tax money should be used in the right way and for the right purposes, I believe, is a self-evident matter for all of us. The nurse, the bus driver, the small business owner, and the preschool teacher should not have to worry that their tax money is going to extremist or radical movements. At the same time, the LGBTQ person or the religious minority who has fled oppression in another country should feel secure that their oppressors cannot continue their activities in Sweden at the taxpayers' expense.

Madam Speaker! Large parts of the bill are in line with the previous proposal, but a number of clarifications have been made so that both the religious communities and civil society can feel secure in doing the right thing.

For example, it has been clarified what it means to be a representative and not. The Government has also clarified what is actually meant by violating the democratic conditions, whether private statements from representatives can indicate violations of the conditions, and how many members a registered religious community should have to receive state subsidies.

There are also special reasons that make it possible for an organization to continue receiving grants despite violations of the conditions, depending on what measures the organization has taken and what the circumstances were.

Madam Speaker! The democratic conditions now being proposed, together with the support function that the government has given the Crime Prevention Council regarding Center against violent extremism, will also benefit civil society and religious communities in the long term. Therefore, democratic conditions are a good tool to protect open democracy from being exploited by anti-democratic forces, ensure confidence in the state's support for civil society, and enable a continued strong civil society.

Madam Speaker! The democratic conditions we have today are formulated in different ways when it comes to the granting of grants to civil society, religious communities and, through practice, also grants from the General Inheritance Fund. These unjustified differences make the current democratic conditions difficult to apply. With this bill, the Government is taking a new approach to make the conditions clearer and more uniform in all parts of the grant-giving.

With the bill, the government also sets clearer requirements for civil society and religious communities to have even clearer knowledge of who is allowed to represent them and for what purposes. As in all parts of society, it is of great importance that both religious communities and civil society take their own responsibility for their organizations.

That clearer requirements from the government are now being set is both a support for these organizations and a security for Sweden's taxpayers.

(Applause)

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

Azadeh Rojhan (S)

Madam Speaker! A struggle for democracy is underway. Extremism in various forms and totalitarian ideas are spreading like a dark shadow over the world and our contemporary era. Russia's ongoing war in Ukraine is a painful reminder that the struggle for democracy is a struggle we must undertake every day.

When we debate civil society today, we are debating the core of a democratic society. Civil society organizations, regardless of their specific interests, contribute to an important component of a democracy: bringing people together.

It is when people meet, express their thoughts openly and dare to be critical of one another but also dare to cooperate on common issues that a sense of belonging and trust arises. We learn from each other and realize that together we can influence and change. We learn to trust one another.

Madam Speaker! Antidemocratic forces benefit from a social climate where people are pitted against one another instead, and where we no longer dare to believe that we make the best decisions together. The most dangerous times have begun in this way.

Madam Speaker! Civil society in Sweden has been hit hard in recent years when the government has significantly reduced state resources to study associations, folk high schools, cultural activities, and most recently, the folk movement grant.

Reducing the role of Swedish voluntary organizations in aid work will have devastating consequences for people all around the world. For over 60 years, Swedish civil society organizations and popular movements have played a central role in Swedish aid. Now the government proposes that Sida should take over the popular movement aid, which will limit civil society's role and undermine the popular anchoring that Swedish aid has had.

It is a deeply worrying development and a deeply worrying civil society policy from the government's side. This risks eroding Swedish civil society, which in many ways is unique. Here there are 244,000 organizations where half of the Swedish population work voluntarily and devote an average of 15 hours a month. Here are all those who lead hockey practices, those who organize poetry evenings, those who act as support for people who have ended up on the wrong side of life, and those who love birds and birdwatching.

Madam Speaker! As I said, civil society is already facing a number of challenges, and it has worsened since the pandemic. MUCF's annual report shows that the organizations are having difficulties with membership recruitment, that inflation has hit their operations hard, and that there is an increased problem with hate and threats.

We Social Democrats view these challenges with concern. We want to develop civil society's opportunities to make people participatory based on engagement and the will to influence their own life situation or society at large. For that, we believe that more meeting places and long-term conditions for civil society are required.

We want to strengthen the conditions for civil society to contribute to social development and welfare as voters and opinion leaders, but also as the principal for various activities. This requires, among other things, that we counter the drift that is currently occurring, where a number of authorities claim that the rules that apply to private business activities should also apply to non-profit association activities. We Social Democrats believe that non-profit association life should not suffer under the rules of market logic.

Madam Speaker! In times of societal crisis, civil society has always stepped forward and taken on a great responsibility. We have good experience of this in the recent past, such as during the pandemic, during the refugee crisis, and now during the difficult economic times that prevail. But when it comes to civil society also being able to continue to be an important support during crises and major societal challenges, it is up to us decision-makers to ensure stable and good conditions for the sector.

Madam Speaker! We decision-makers who safeguard democracy must also realize that threats and hate, as well as assaults and violence from extreme groups against civil society, do not occur in a vacuum. It is a result of an emerging social climate. In the worst cases, it manifests in acts of violence, such as a few weeks ago in Gubbängen and on May 1st in Västerås, when far-right NMR attacked political gatherings. But it also happens daily. It happens every day on social media through troll accounts or in ordinary emails to individual engaged individuals in these activities.

These proceedings are about only one thing: to silence dissent and intimidate people from engagement. It is a development that we Social Democrats will never intend to accept. Democracy is built from the bottom up. We Social Democrats will always stand guard for those who daily build our democracy.

Madam Speaker! In order for civil society to continue to be a strong force for democracy, we must also be vigilant against the forces that attempt to exploit civil society for undemocratic purposes. It is our collective responsibility to ensure that civil society's values of inclusion, equality, and respect for human rights are preserved and protected. That is why we welcome that the government is now finally moving forward with legislation on democratic conditions for civil society, a piece of legislation that the S-led government had prepared earlier but which was withdrawn by the current government.

That is also why we are deeply critical of the government's handling of a finished bill, which has led to, among other things, religious communities that have not lived up to democratic principles regarding human rights being able to continue to receive state subsidies.

Unfortunately, during recent years, we have seen a number of revelations showing how various communities receiving state support have deviated from fundamental democratic principles regarding human rights. As examples, communities that have denied women the right to enter into marriage without a male guardian or to obtain a divorce can be mentioned – as well as free churches that conducted conversion activities.

We are therefore deeply critical of the slow handling regarding the preparation of a new bill. Now that it exists, we see that it only deviates marginally from the original. This leads us to ask: Why has it taken so long?

Activities that do not live up to the proposed democracy criteria have been able to continue their activities with state support. This risks undermining confidence in the state's contribution system. It has also meant that organizations that do not promote democratic values have been able to receive public funds. We consider this to be unacceptable. But with legislation on democracy conditions in place, the authorities will be able to demand reimbursement from activities that do not meet the requirements, and we welcome that.

The Social Democrats support the proposals presented in the bill that is now being submitted. But at the same time, we want to urge the current government to act faster and more effectively in future legislative work to avoid similar delays. Here I specifically want to mention the work currently underway to prepare directives for an inquiry into a ban on foreign funding of religious communities and other organizations in the civil society sphere with links to Islamism and extremism. We Social Democrats would like to see this work be expedited.

Madam Speaker! Democracy is not built by us here in the Riksdag. It is not built through laws and regulations. It is built in the everyday encounters between people, in the discussions at association meetings, on the sports field, and in the world of culture. It is there, in the heart of civil society, that true democracy lives and thrives. That is what we must protect and safeguard.

With those words I thank you, and I stand behind reservation 14.

(Applause)

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

Carl Nordblom (M)

Madam Speaker! I did not intend to request the floor, but Member Rojhan almost forced me.

It was actually after massive criticism from both civil society and religious communities that the government withdrew this bill. There were flaws in the Social Democrats' rather sloppy, if I may put it that way, bill, which was rushed through a month before the 2022 election.

I want to start by asking Member Rojhan: Was Member Rojhan satisfied with the bill that the Social Democrats submitted? Why did they not, for example, clarify what a representative is or exemplify what crimes against democratic conditions are already in their original bill?

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

Azadeh Rojhan (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Carl Nordblom, for the questions! I think they are very interesting questions.

There is something that I find astonishing. When we had the debate on civil society before the 2022 election, it was party comrades of Carl Nordblom who stood up here and criticized us for being late in handling the bill and who argued that this would be put in place. It was time to get a bill in place. Then the S-led government presented a bill, and none of the parties Moderaterna, Liberalerna, Kristdemokraterna, or SD submitted a motion in connection with that bill. No motions – that must surely be interpreted as that they were satisfied with the bill.

Then there was a change of power. The Tidö parties, with the support of SD, came to power. Then the bill was withdrawn. The question is, Carl Nordblom: What was it that happened there? Were you, before the 2022 election, not sufficiently attentive to the things that you are now presenting as criticism to us? You could have then presented this through motions to highlight that these improvements could be made.

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

Carl Nordblom (M)

Madam Speaker! Yes, it was indeed too late in August 2022. It was at least eight years too late. It is interesting that the Social Democrats finally wake up and think that these are priority problems – one has had at least eight years to do it.

Not to be sarcastic, but the Social Democrats have governed the country for the last 70 of the 100 years.

It is good that the government withdrew the bill. It is good that the government did a more thorough job and reviewed the existing shortcomings so that there is an effect once the bill has become law.

The government will never accept extremism. Perhaps the previous government did. But I am quite sure that this bourgeois government will never do so.

When it comes to the taxpayers' money, I want order and clarity in every case. I am quite pleased that we present careful propositions in the chamber that are processed and become effective laws.

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

Azadeh Rojhan (S)

Madam Speaker! The question is whether we are going to keep playing with words and talking about how we somehow like extremism and that Carl Nordblom does not like it. Did you like extremism during the years that the Alliance government ruled? Then you did not come up with any democratic conditions. It becomes almost ridiculous to have such a discussion.

When the problems appeared and there was a problematic issue to address, the previous S-led government took on the issue and began working out a proposal for a bill with democratic conditions that would enter into force and become legislation during 2023.

The current government withdrew that bill, and it returned with small, marginal changes. Carl Nordblom thought the bill arrived eight years too late. It is now ten years delayed because work has been done very slowly and cautiously and because the Tidö parties have not been able to reach an agreement to produce a finished result.

During this time, extreme organizations have been able to receive state funds, instead of us being able to stop them already two years ago.

(Applause)

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

Roland Utbult (KD)

Madam Speaker! It is fantastic how the Swedish people engage in voluntary efforts in our country. Without the voluntary efforts, we would not have managed to maintain the welfare and social cohesion. We would not have managed the maintenance of democracy in the country ourselves.

Therefore, it is important that civil society and religious communities have long-term and stable support from the state. But conditions are also needed that safeguard all the good that civil society and religious communities stand for, so that funds do not go to organizations that use public funds for activities that serve completely different purposes. Such activity undermines trust in both civil society and the state.

It is now included in the actual text of the law which circumstances are required in order to be eligible for grants. At the same time, there are other laws that criminalize crimes committed by individuals, but the conditions for granting grants concern what occurs within the framework of the activity itself.

I took the trouble to compile the names of some of the religious communities that receive state grants today. They are the Church of England in Sweden, Bibeltrogna Vänner, the Danish Church in Sweden, the Norwegian Church in Sweden, Equmeniakyrkan, EFS, Evangeliska Frikyrkan, the Salvation Army, the Islamic Cooperation Council, Orthodox churches, Svenska Alliansmissionen, the Roman Catholic Church, and Jehovah's Witnesses. There are more than these, I should also say.

Madam Speaker! The Christian Democrats have worked to create clarity in the bill, not least regarding the so-called representative role, which several have touched upon here earlier. This has been requested by civil society and religious communities.

In the proposal, it is clear that not every individual member or participant is considered a representative of an organization, nor are participants or officials on occasional occasions. Representatives are, for example, leaders and board members.

It is required that one represents the organization externally or internally to be considered a representative. Officials at camps or events are not to be considered representatives as a rule.

The Government clarifies that it is not the organization's responsibility to take responsibility for such private statements made by a representative that lack a connection to his function as a representative.

Many leaders within, above all, the children's and youth organizations are young people, such as in the scout movement and the sports movement. That an action by a young representative should always lead to the same consequences as an action by an adult is not deemed desirable, according to the government. It could affect the willingness for voluntary engagement. On the contrary, we want to encourage the engagement of young people and children in civil society, and therefore it is an important part for us Christian Democrats.

Madam Speaker! The new bill also contains a number of tightenings, for example, if one promotes extremism by providing premises to an extremist organization. In that case, no grants shall be paid out.

Another example is that it clarifies in which cases a religious community or an organization violates the conditions of democracy. This applies, for example, when a religious community or a civil organization urges its members or the general public to use competing systems for law enforcement instead of the ordinary justice system, or if members are urged to oppose the implementation of free elections.

Another clarification made in the bill is that association with extremism means that a religious community or an organization violates the democratic condition. The provision of premises can therefore be considered as promoting violent extremism. In that case, the democratic condition is violated, and no state funds should be received.

Finally, Madam Speaker: The democratic conditions send an important signal about the fundamental values that apply in our society. We can read about it in the Instrument of Government. It is about common, traditional values such as honesty, openness, and clarity. It means that we have clear conditions for which organizations shall have the right to receive a share of our tax funds.

Already today, such conditions are set in order to be able to receive a share of the support. But the democratic conditions that apply today have been criticized, as we have heard here earlier, for being unclear and difficult to apply. The government has taken that criticism seriously.

With the now proposed democratic conditions, clear requirements are created regarding what organizations may not do if they are to be able to receive support from the state. It must be clear that public funds shall go to organizations that uphold democracy and not to those that undermine it.

I support the committee's proposed position and move for the rejection of the motions.

(Applause)

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

Vasiliki Tsouplaki (V)

Madam Speaker! To speak in a few minutes about the importance of a strong civil society does not let itself be done easily. I am a little worried, Madam Speaker, that today I will exceed my registered speaking time.

One of the reasons is that the concept itself contains such a breadth of organizational forms, activities, worldviews, wills, and purposes. But it is also because civil society means so many different things for all the millions of inhabitants who are involved in one way or another. It is 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 a lack of influence and poverty and hunger that drove it, but also the insight that change is possible when people come together and that the social order is not divinely given, but that people can and have the right to have a dignified future here on earth.

Just as now, the associations are also schools of democracy. There, for example, one learns important processes for decision-making. But we also see that many new forms of organizing have emerged since then, and it is important that we keep up from a political standpoint so that our regulatory frameworks for grants are adapted and the dialogue is good between the public sector and civil society.

Madam Speaker! Vänsterpartiet argues that we must be careful regarding voluntary commitment and ensure that we have simple and clear regulations and good support from granting authorities and that, for example, the municipalities have a way in for the associations in order to facilitate voluntary commitment. We also need long-term organizational grants.

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. Our entire decision-making process is actually built on the fact that civil society is given the opportunity to respond to referrals and contribute with their perspectives.

I still believe it is important that we ensure we maintain a clear distinction between these two spheres. As soon as the grants become too controlling and civil society becomes an executor of municipal, regional, or state assignments, there is a risk that critical voices will be stifled and, in the long run, that our legislative work will suffer.

The current government unfortunately does not seem to fully support the fact that we need to have a diversity of voices or see the benefit in letting them be heard.

Madam Speaker! We have seen that several ministers have expressed themselves critically regarding voluntary engagement, demonstrations, and expressions of opinion. I mean that it indicates political immaturity that one cannot handle critical voices better, and I am seriously concerned that the insight into what builds a strong and healthy democracy is lacking in the country's leadership.

There are several examples in recent times. I will mention a few here.

Education Minister Mats Persson has repeatedly criticized students' various ways of expressing support for the Palestinian people and demanding a stop to the genocide in Gaza. Vänsterpartiet has now reported the minister to KU for his handling of that issue.

Mats Persson has also had ideas that certain views hinder the academic environment and has had it investigated. It turned out not to be true. The problems that emerged were instead political steering and underfunding. We will have to see what conclusions the government draws from it.

We have also seen that Carl-Oskar Bohlin, a Moderate minister, quickly came out and demanded measures from the Swedish Energy Agency when it turned out that an employee was active in the climate organization Rebellmammorna.

There are many ways to stifle oppositional voices and reduce voluntary engagement. It does not necessarily have to be through legislation; one can go far by making people worried that they will lose their jobs or not be considered for a position because there are security screenings that classify a large number of residents as risks.

The union has now reported this entire procedure to the Chancellor of Justice. I want to quote the union lawyer Joakim Lindqvist: "It is not what she has done, but that she has had the 'wrong' political stance on civil disobedience. It is her ideological stance in itself that the authority takes into account in its assessment, and that is even more serious."

The other day, Minister of Justice Gunnar Strömmer opened up for a restriction of freedom of association, and Ebba Busch has opened up for deporting people based on their interpretation of faith. So, there is a significant swaying regarding our fundamental freedoms and rights with the Tidö parties.

I can to some extent understand that it can feel tempting to give in to undemocratic views. But it is a matter of watching one's language. We shall judge the actions and not engage in opinion-registering. We shall hold freedom of thought, freedom of conscience, freedom of religion, and freedom of association in high regard. We must hold the fundamental rights in high regard.

Madam Speaker! It has also just been shown that the new regulatory framework for media undermines smaller newspapers based on, for example, Christian values and with green and socialist perspectives. That was precisely what several parties in the opposition warned against. The risk is now great that those who will remain are large corporations with bourgeois editorial lines.

The Sweden Democrats stated that they hoped it would be the result of this change, while the government parties in the parliamentary debate then claimed that that was not the intention at all.

I also take the opportunity to highlight some other heavy financing issues.

It is about the cuts for the student unions of one-third of the state support. It is also about resources that ultimately go to education and training for the whole of Association Sweden.

One has also taken the opportunity to remove the grant to the ethnically based associations, which organize many of those who are affected by the tightening migration and integration policy.

I just met the organization Sveriges konsumenter, which monitors that consumers do not get the short end of the stick when the EU and Sweden legislate. It will not have any state subsidies left next year.

The Tidö parties also take the opportunity in these NATO times to remove grants to peace organizations and to civil society's aid activities.

It must still be the case that a strong democracy shall accommodate a diversity of opinions. In any case, for me as a Left Party member, it is obvious, and I regret that Minister Jakob Forssmed, who is responsible for civil society policy, has not taken the time to participate in this debate today when we see this massive attack on the broad civil society.

Madam Speaker! For Vänsterpartiet, it is also self-evident that civil society is primarily an important resource. That is why there should be public support. The fact that people organize themselves around an interest, a specific issue, or a belief contributes to our population gaining coherence, social community, and an outlet for creativity. One gets to feel needed in a context. It also improves our public health and education, to mention just a few things.

But we also need to highlight the downside. There is, of course, a risk that that sense of community can demand conformity and loyalty and cannot tolerate questioning. Sometimes people experience that they cannot be fully themselves, and there are, of course, organizations and communities that do not believe in all people's equal value and that also encourage hatred and violence.

That risk cannot be fully legislated away, and it is important that we obtain a balanced regulatory framework. Several million people in our country perform voluntary efforts every day for their fellow citizens. It is fundamentally something fine and important for our society and our democracy that should be encouraged, not seen as a potential threat.

Madam Speaker! There are democratic conditions already today. I believe we need to tell those listening to the debate that. There are democratic conditions in the state's granting of subsidies, but there has been criticism that they are difficult to interpret and apply. Therefore, we in Vänsterpartiet welcome that a new approach is being taken.

The proposal put forward by the previous government was unfortunately also unclear in some parts. We had a long follow-up motion then.

We have a slightly shorter follow-up motion this time, as the current government has made some minor changes that have improved and clarified the regulatory framework. My hope is that this can facilitate matters for granting authorities and contribute to clarity for receiving organizations.

But there are still some question marks. I naturally understand that in a bill like this, one cannot list all eventualities, but we would have liked to see some clarifications.

One is about who can be considered a central representative. In that regard, our reasoning is very similar to what the Green Party has previously explained. It is very large restrictions that are imagined to be able to be made when an individual representative in some way violates these criteria, and then it is important that it is clear who can be considered such a representative.

I also think it is good that there are clear provisions regarding age. I think that Roland Utbult in a good way explained why it is important that young people get their own provision here.

What is missing, however, concerns a criterion that applies today, regarding democratic structure. In recent years, we have seen many examples where the interpretation of this democratic condition risks tightening other parts. Therefore, we would have wished that democratic structure had been included in the investigation.

My speaking time is running out. But I will just briefly explain that it is about the fact that granting authorities require local organizations to have their own statutes. It becomes difficult if one requires a lot of influence from the national level in order to be able to pay out grants. We think that it would have needed to be reviewed.

That is why I want to raise reservation number 3, which concerns precisely democratic structure. It is an organizational model that has applied in Sweden for over a hundred years. We have national organizations where one sets its statutes, at the congress or at annual meetings, and they also apply to local organizations.

There are still question marks regarding some of the wording, which we believe leaves room for arbitrariness. It will, for example, be difficult for the person who is to assess the applications when it comes to some concepts. We therefore believe that the bill needs to be evaluated quite soon. That is also one of our points.

Madam Speaker! In conclusion, I would like to say something about the conditions for religious communities. Vänsterpartiet would have liked to see a lower limit for the number of members served. We believe that gathering 1,000 people around a common faith would have been a better level. There we have a common reservation with Miljöpartiet.

My hope is that the state now receives tools to deny grants to undemocratic organizations. But I hope that the Tidö parties shift their policy for civil society in other areas, so that the 6 million inhabitants who daily contribute to a stronger democracy receive support for that in both words and actions and in economic terms.

(Applause)

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

Jakob Olofsgård (L)

Madam Speaker! Today we are debating the support for religious communities and civil society. It is fundamentally a debate about people's opportunities to practice their faith but also about the importance of defending the liberal democracy in which we live.

Madam Speaker! When I stand here in the speaker's chair, I represent the Liberals. My conviction is liberalism, but my role as a pastor in a free church fellowship and the experiences I have from there, I of course also carry with me. I stand, so to speak, with my feet in two movements that both constitute foundations in Sweden's democratic growth. The history of Swedish democracy, in fact, cannot be told without speaking about the Swedish awakening movement. It is about the origins of my religious community and other communities.

I want to take you back to September 21, 1848. In Vallersvik, outside Frillesås south of Gothenburg, six people went into the seawater to be baptized. It was the beginning of a personal journey for each of those involved, but at the same time, it was an important step on the way toward a more democratic Sweden.

The wave of organization that began with this Baptist baptism in 1848 signified something completely new. A freer Sweden began to be born. A hard struggle over religious freedom and the state church started. It was a struggle that we liberals stood behind. It was about the individual person's right to seek their own path together with the small community, and truth and education were the guiding principles.

Madam Speaker! Today we are debating the conditions for religious communities and civil society to conduct an active and long-term activity and that it shall be able to be strengthened through the new law on state grants to religious communities. The state grant shall contribute to giving all people the same basic opportunities to practice their religion in Sweden, but it shall also contribute to upholding and strengthening the fundamental values on which society rests.

In the new law, new definitions of religious community, congregation, and served are proposed. This is very good. New conditions aimed at stability and own vitality are also proposed, which is both necessary and welcome. Perhaps most importantly is that we manage to get a new democratic condition in place. We in the Liberals have worked for this for several years.

I want to go back to that September day in 1848. The six people stepped into the water for their own sake and for the freedom of others. It was about the freedom to choose one's own path and to live as they themselves desired. That is what this debate is ultimately about. The very purpose of the state subsidies is to promote every human being's right to freedom.

Madam Speaker! We Liberals have highlighted the importance of state subsidies having to be accompanied by high-level requirements, clear democratic conditions, and criteria aimed at what clearly attacks or stands in opposition to the democratic society's fundamental values. It must be put in place. And it is being done now. We have done so with the knowledge that the democratic conditions that exist today have not functioned. They are both far too vague and far too difficult to apply.

Reality speaks its clear language. We have seen that hate preachers have been invited and that members have been urged to use competing systems for law enforcement instead of the ordinary justice system. We have seen pressure or coercion against young hbtqi people, for example conversion attempts, that representatives have advocated for honor violence, that young women have been deprived of their fundamental rights to choose whom they shall marry, and that pure antisemitism has grown strong. The list of things that do not belong in a modern democracy can unfortunately be made very long.

The warnings have been many, from individuals to auditing authorities, that the system is being abused. Despite the knowledge that the grants have been abused by associations and other organizations, voices are heard in the debate today that seem to think that the proposal we are debating goes too far. They think that the definition of which representatives can be held accountable is too broad and that a large organization cannot be held accountable for how its representatives act. My answer to that is: Yes, that is exactly what is required. That is exactly the point.

The new conditions, which are now being implemented, are clearer and easier to apply. An organization must act in accordance with society's fundamental values, otherwise there will be no state support. It is also important that it is clarified that association with extremism means that a religious community or an organization violates the democratic condition.

Madam Speaker! On September 21, 1848, in Vallersvik, the small group of ordinary people stood up for the freedom and right to choose their own lives. Now we are establishing new democratic conditions to defend exactly that which the six individuals began to fight for.

The proposal we are debating today is clarifying. It strengthens individuals' opportunities to practice their faith while simultaneously guaranteeing that not a single tax crown shall go toward maintaining oppression of any kind. Therefore, I move for approval of the committee's proposal.

(Applause)

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

Catarina Deremar (C)

Madam Speaker! I would like to begin by moving for approval of reservation number 7, which concerns so-called conversion therapy.

The state supports religious communities and civil society, which are two fundamental pillars of our democracy. It is about freedom of religion and freedom of association. They both play a major role in ensuring that our society remains stable and develops, and they create places where people meet, which in itself further develops our democratic society.

Madam Speaker! Tax revenue must never be used in such a way that the constitutionally anchored principle of people's equal value is diluted or sidelined. The religious communities and civil society organizations that receive state grants must commit to upholding fundamental democratic principles.

It is good that the bill State support for religious communities and civil society - uniform and legally secure conditions has finally been presented by the government, but it is unfortunate that the introduction of uniform conditions has been delayed. It was urgent already when the previous government presented its bill, which the current government has since withdrawn. But now we are here, and that is positive.

During the summer of 2022, Dagens Nyheter reported on several religious communities' views on homosexuality. It turned out that there were instances of both conversion therapy and fundraising for sister organizations that engage in pure homophobia in other countries. At the same time as these religious communities receive state grants to contribute to maintaining and strengthening the fundamental values on which society rests, they conduct activities that seriously violate the rights of hbtqi persons. The Center Party can never agree to state support contributing to that type of unacceptable activity.

In the bill we are discussing today, it appears that conversion therapy for young people conflicts with the democratic condition, while conversion therapy for adults is not mentioned at all. The Center Party considers, in light of the vulnerable situation a congregant or a congregation member often finds themselves in in relation to the religious community and its representatives, that it must be stated that all conversion therapy conflicts with the democratic condition and therefore constitutes a ground for exclusion. This is what the Center Party's reservation 7 is about.

Madam Speaker! All legislation that entails a restriction of constitutionally protected freedoms and rights must also be carefully scrutinized and considered. It must never occur nonchalantly or perfunctorily. For the control mechanisms to function, the preparation of legislation must always be handled carefully and with great respect. Especially in matters concerning fundamental freedoms and rights, such as for example freedom of religion, freedom of association, and freedom of expression, the legislator must carefully state its considerations and at the same time give representatives of the affected interests sufficient time and opportunity for insight, referral, and debate.

Now, identical democratic conditions for support to religious communities and civil society are proposed. That is positive. But again, I want to emphasize the importance of the government, upon the introduction of legislation concerning our constitutionally protected freedoms and rights, clearly explaining its considerations regarding effects and consequences.

In the investigation's proposal for a law on the state's support to religious communities, there was a regulation regarding the reclamation of state grants that is not included in the bill. The Centre Party considers that such a regulation should also continue to be included in the proposed law on the state's support to religious communities.

It is central that there are uniform democratic conditions for the state's contributions to religious communities and civil society. The contributions should only go to organizations that live up to these. It is important to follow up early on how accurate the democratic conditions are. The follow-up should cover a breadth of perspectives, so that the democratic conditions have the intended effect, and one should also look at how civil society is affected. Other issues in the bill, including the proposal regarding requirements on the number of served in a congregation for it to be able to receive support, also need to be covered in that work.

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

Peter Ollén (M)

Madam Speaker! Civil society has a completely central function in Sweden when it comes to nurturing us into active and democratic citizens.

An important democratic expression took place, as Jakob Olofsgård so meritably pointed out, on September 21, 1848. This was also highlighted as the foundation of Swedish democracy when SVT produced its series Historien om Sverige last year. On this day, the total monopoly on religious interpretation that the state had held since Gustav Vasa introduced the Reformation in Sweden in the 1500s was broken.

The state cracked down hard on the free church, but the seed of free thinking and a democratic structure had been born. Therefore, it could not be stopped when the democratic free church - with the principle one member, one vote - was followed by the temperance movement, trade unions, folk high schools, and educational associations. Early on, the suffrage movement also understood that the demand for free and equal suffrage required citizens who were literate and actively took part in the creation of a democratic society.

Even today, some of the religious denominations are important carriers of popular education and the democratic society. Even today, it applies that every member has a vote at the regular membership meetings which form the backbone of a free church congregation, and even today, all costs in a free church are financed through the funds collected from the members.

The fact is that the state finances a large part of the national, overall community leadership. Until now, those funds have been distributed relatively loosely, but now this year the government has compiled which democratic criteria must be met for a community to be able to receive state grants. This makes us more certain that taxpayers' money is used to support democratic work. It should make it easier for the Swedish Agency for Support to Religious Communities to determine who should receive support and who should not - all in order to promote and strengthen a democratic development in Sweden.

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

Vasiliki Tsouplaki (V)

Madam Speaker! I feel that we have had somewhat too few exchanges of remarks in this debate, so I must take the opportunity before it is over.

Peter Ollén speaks very nicely about the emergence of our democratic society with the help of the popular movements and the power that was unleashed or organized in the different types of movements we could see from the 1800s onwards. It is very nice to hear this. We share that view. I also touched upon much of this in my speech as well.

Given that the member sees the value of popular education and that even smaller religious communities have received support and the strength to grow, I wonder: How is it that the Moderaterna submit a proposition where they do not take the number proposed by the investigation, 1,000 served, as the limit for receiving state support, but instead set it at a level of 2,500 served? That is one of my questions.

Then I also want to hear a bit more about how the member justifies the large cuts you are making within folkbildningen, especially through the slashed grants to the studieförbund? By the end of the mandate period, they will have lost a third of the state support. Can the member explain a bit how that reasoning aligns with the fine explanation that was given initially?

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

Peter Ollén (M)

Madam Speaker! I thank Vasiliki Tsouplaki for the question.

When it comes to 1,000, 2,500 or 3,000, as it stood in the original proposal, I do not know how the discussions have proceeded. Therefore, I cannot answer how the arguments and considerations have gone back and forth from the original 3,000 down to 2,500. I consequently do not know either why one has not proceeded to 1,000.

The reduction for the study associations was linked to a decrease in the number of participants in the study associations' circles. We have seen a decline over the last ten years, since 2013, with only half as many new people entering the study associations' activities. The reduction was due to a devastating report from the National Audit Office which showed that a large part of the courses in the activities had never taken place. Therefore, an adjustment was made.

The hope is, naturally, that one finds forms that attract people so that one obtains a living public education, but it is clear that we must find new forms in order to win and to reach the young people today.

(Applause)

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

Vasiliki Tsouplaki (V)

Madam Speaker! I thank Peter Ollén for the answer.

What is stated in the bill is that it is a large number, primarily smaller Christian churches, that will fall outside the limit. The proposal of 1,000 was included in the investigation, and 3,000 is the limit that applies today. 2,500 is, of course, an improvement. More will be included, but we would, of course, have wanted to see that the investigation's proposal was followed in order to include more smaller denominations.

It is tough to be a smaller religious community in a country as secularized as Sweden. If one has gathered together 1,000 people, one has worked quite well, and I think there is reason for the state to support smaller religious communities in that way.

Regarding the study associations, I unfortunately do not think the logic really holds up. When one sees that there are deficiencies in follow-up and in control systems, the study associations have, when cheating has been uncovered, really tightened things up. They have moved forward with IT systems that follow up at the individual level with login via BankID. Large, costly systems have been set up at the study associations to rectify irregularities where the study associations have been subjected to fraud. They have now done everything to plug the holes in recent years. I do not think the government parties have really appreciated this. These are costly investments that have been made in terms of personnel and in IT infrastructure.

If this had affected an agency, one would have ensured that it received more economic muscles to deal with fraud and irregularities, but here the government and SD have gone the other way. When one has been subjected to fraud, one is punished by receiving a lower appropriation. It is unfortunate. Can the member comment on this?

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

Peter Ollén (M)

Madam Speaker! I thank you for the supplementary questions.

In the question regarding the support for smaller associations, we must remember that what we are talking about here is the state support to the organizations itself. Then, of course, there is the possibility of support at the municipal or regional level if it is a question of smaller actors.

Again, I must say that I do not have the answer as to why that figure was reached, but that does not mean one is completely without the possibility of support. Generally speaking, what one asks for support for when it comes to denominations is limited because there is often a tradition there—I can speak for the Free Church because I am a member there, but I assume it also applies to other denominations—of a strong willingness to pay so that one finances one's own activities. There is not an expectation that taxpayers should pay because one has gatherings with one another.

Then there were the student unions. When it comes to the Swedish Sports Confederation, from youth football up to the elite, support has gone from 2 to 2.1 billion kronor. That it lands at 1.5 billion after three years is no small sum. It is a large sum that student unions work with. It is absolutely not a question of a dramatic reduction in the student unions' activities, but one adjusts in relation to what is being done.

My sincere hope is that we find forms, in study associations or other forms, so that we can entice young people to participate in democratic work to a greater extent in the future.

(Applause)

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(A decision was to be taken on 18 June.)

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