Response to interpellation 2022/23:37 on the funding of religious communities
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
The debate concerns the funding of religious communities and foreign influence. C accuses Imam Ali Islamic Center of criminality, including matchmaking activities and espionage for Iran, and argues that the government is dodging stopping the contributions 1 2 3. C also criticizes the government for withdrawing a bill on democratic conditions 2. KD argues that state contributions should not go to communities that promote extremism or act as a front for foreign powers 4 5. KD explains that they are revising the democratic conditions to create a sharper regulatory framework 6. KD emphasizes that they are working on investigation directives to ban foreign funding of extremist communities 6 7.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Socialministern Jakob Forssmed (KD)
Madam Speaker! Alireza Akhondi has asked the Minister for Culture what general measures the Minister and the Government intend to take to stop the contributions to Imam Ali Islamic Center and its activities as soon as possible. Furthermore, the Member has asked what measures the Minister and the Government intend to take to ensure that other states' funding of religious communities, such as Imam Ali Islamic Center, shall be stopped for good.
The work within the government is distributed such that it is I, as Social Minister with responsibility for the policy on religious communities, who shall answer the interpellation.
The Government has been clear that the issue of a ban on foreign funding of religious communities where there is a connection to extremism, Islamism, and separatism shall be investigated. The work to prepare directives for an investigation is currently being prepared within the Government Offices.
Regarding the first question, Imam Ali Islamic Center itself does not receive any state grants. However, there is a congregation operating in the center's premises that receives state grants as part of the Islamic Shia Communities.
As the responsible minister, I cannot comment on an individual case. However, I assume that the responsible authorities have taken note of the debate surrounding the Islamic Shia Communities and, if there are grounds, they will take the measures required based on the applicable regulatory framework.
Alireza Akhondi (C)
Madam Speaker! Freedom of religion and freedom of association are two important components of our liberal democracy. These are freedoms that are so important that we have protected them in our constitutions and thus nothing that any of us here in the chamber takes lightly in any way.
Some of us believe in a higher power and a life after this. For the vast majority in our secularized country, faith is something between us and the one we believe in. I myself have chosen not to believe in any higher power, but in my own ability to create the life that I desire. If it turns out that I am wrong, I shall well have to rely on my ability to negotiate myself a place in paradise.
It is precisely that which is wonderful about Sweden: We believe differently, pray to different gods, or reject everything that religion stands for. Freedom to choose – goodness, what a beautiful meaning!
Madam Speaker! These freedoms must not, however, be taken for granted. There are those who want to use these freedoms to restrict our freedom to choose. There are those who, with the help of these freedoms, choose to radicalize others into acts of violence. There are those who use these freedoms to create gender-segregated schools and as a cover to conduct refugee espionage and sow division between people.
It is exactly what today's debate is about. It is not about freedom of religion. It is not about freedom of association. It is not about pointing out groups of people as a problem. It is not about pointing out any specific religion as a problem. It is rather about putting a stop to cheating and crime in the name of religion. It is about strengthening trust in our democratic institutions and safeguarding and developing Swedish democracy.
Madam Speaker! Imam Ali Islamic Center in Järfälla and actually the entire Shia community in Sweden has profound deficiencies that in some respects are purely criminal according to Swedish law. This spring, a fantastic investigation of so-called sighe was conducted by SVT's Uppdrag granskning. It is a phenomenon that is commonly occurring, among other places, in Iran. Very simplified, one can describe sighe as a so-called pleasure marriage or, if one wishes, the purchase of sexual services.
The investigation showed very clearly that a number of Shia centers around Sweden not only encouraged this but actively facilitated contacts. To me, it is pure and simple recruitment activity - which is also a serious crime in Sweden.
There are also countless reports and testimonies that Imam Ali Islamic Center specifically is the Iranian state's extended arm in Sweden. These are testimonies that should be taken most seriously by the judicial authorities. It concerns everything from direct espionage to crimes of an economic nature. There are also many testimonies regarding the radicalization of young people and visitors.
Madam Speaker! I am surprised, if not astonished, that neither the police, Säpo, the government, nor responsible authorities have noticed this issue until now. It is high time that it happens now. I had hoped a great deal for the bill that the previous government worked out, which clearly contained provisions regarding democratic conditions as a basis for receiving public funds. It could be an effective way to tackle this type of unserious and criminal activity.
Unfortunately, the current government has actively chosen to withdraw the bill that was ready for a decision in the Riksdag, probably due to the Christian Democrats in light of the fact that communities such as Livets Ord and Jehovah's Witnesses could potentially be affected by this legislation.
Socialministern Jakob Forssmed (KD)
Madam Speaker! There were many threads in Member Alireza Akhondis's speech. I shall try to take up some of them in my response.
I agree that freedom of religion and freedom of association are incredibly beautiful. People's ability to organize themselves and seek happiness and meaning in life together with others is something that is well worth protecting and nurturing, and it is no coincidence that it is enshrined in our constitution.
I also agree that one should be able to have freedom of religion and freedom from religion. There are certainly many who would be interested in the member's ability to negotiate a place in paradise.
If it is purely criminal acts occurring under the guise of religious communities, they must, of course, be prosecuted. There is no general protection for conducting the types of activities the member points out, such as human trafficking and other such things, and they must therefore be subject to legal action. If it is criminal activity, the law enforcement authorities will naturally intervene against this. There is no doubt about that.
From the government's side, I want to state that state grants should not go to organizations or religious communities that promote extremism or terrorism or that act as a front for a foreign power in Sweden. As I said in my previous answer, I cannot comment on an individual case, but I do assume that the responsible authorities take part in the debate, including this one today, and take measures that they find appropriate based on the applicable regulations. That is what I can say as a minister.
There were also a number of other threads that the debater raised here. I will make sure to conclude the speech here, and then I will return in the next speech to several of the matters that the member raised.
Alireza Akhondi (C)
Madam Speaker! I am both surprised and extremely disappointed by the Minister's reluctance to answer my questions concretely. I was pleased that it was indeed Jakob Forssmed, a Christian Democratic Minister, who took over my interpellation, which was originally addressed to Parisa Liljestrand.
I notice that the Minister actively chooses not to answer the questions, neither in writing nor from the rostrum. Indeed, quite serious accusations are being directed at this center, and it is highly alarming that, with reference to the Minister's information, he ducks addressing the issue in the near future.
I therefore want to broaden the discussion with additional components, namely the foreign financing of religious communities as such. There are currently four countries that actively engage in that type of activity in Sweden: Iran, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Turkey. There is every reason to discuss whether it is reasonable for other states to actively finance religious communities, with all the risks that they can entail in a country like Sweden.
A year ago, I submitted a motion to the Riksdag in which I had a request that the government should appoint an inquiry to prevent such foreign financing of religious activities in Sweden that aim to spread extremism and non-democratic messages. The Riksdag therefore issued a notice, an exhortation, to the government. The notice was issued in connection with the committee's consideration of approximately 100 proposals on freedom and rights and the prevention of violent extremism in motions from the general motion period 2021.
I am proud that I and the Center Party have championed the issue and that the investigation that the Minister refers to in his answer bears my and my party's signature. But in waiting for the investigation to yield results – we know that investigations take their time before they are completed – and given the preparation requirements in the legislative process, it is what we can most closely hope for, precisely the proposition that has been withdrawn by the Minister. I would like to hear the Minister explain why it has been chosen to withdraw the proposition.
We all have the opportunities and the obligations - I emphasize that - to safeguard the fundamental rights in our beloved Sweden. To refrain from acting at this stage when these rights have been exploited by a foreign power to undermine our society is extremely serious.
This is not just about a single community, and I want to emphasize that it is not about problematizing faith itself. I have all the respect for faith. This is about purely criminal activity. In some parts, there are reports - evidence - that clearly show that pleasure marriages actually occur and, furthermore, an active mediation of such activity. In other parts, there are testimonies. These are testimonies of the nature that it requires the government to actually take the issue with the utmost seriousness and address it in the near future.
Socialministern Jakob Forssmed (KD)
Madam Speaker! I heard that the member was surprised, but I myself am a bit surprised that he uses words like dodge, actively not taking a stand, and so on. I am prevented, which the member knows very well, from taking a stand in individual cases. It is not possible, and the member knows that.
Regarding the democratic conditions, I believe the member, if the member has followed the debate, knows that there have been many question marks. How are the conditions to be applied in the organizations that uphold democracy? We have therefore chosen to take a second look. There is no doubt that the government will return with democratic conditions. We will do what we can to produce a regulatory framework that is sharper and simpler to apply also in relation to associations that engage in extremism.
The member suggests that the regulatory framework would be used to protect cults in Sweden. That is, of course, not the case. In fact, previous Christian Democratic cabinet ministers have acted to ensure that Jehovah's Witnesses do not receive state subsidies, partly because they clearly turn away from society. That type of insinuation is, of course, for the member to stand by. But there is no doubt about what the purpose is here.
I pointed out in my response that we are working on a proposal for an investigation directive to move forward regarding the prohibition of foreign funding of religious communities and other organizations that engage in extremism or separatism in Sweden. Work is currently underway here.
I am grateful for the member's initiative. It is good that there are several of us pushing forward on issues of religious freedom, while at the same time we do not accept extremism and that foreign powers use different types of tools in Sweden.
Alireza Akhondi (C)
Madam Speaker! Being a minister in Sweden is not entirely simple. I understand that there is a clear framework for what the minister is and is not allowed to do.
At the same time, the responsible authority refers to the fact that it is the government that must make decisions to stop grants to individual associations. In this way, the government is in no way prevented from acting on the issue.
Then there is something else that the Minister can do. Just before the bill on the democracy requirement, there is a completed investigation. In that case, there is no reason to postpone a process and take a new approach. The criticism that has been voiced against the bill has been addressed in the referral process regarding the legislative proposal.
At this stage, unless the Minister has any other announcements to make, I cannot draw any other conclusion than that the Minister is actually dodging the question. In that case, it is up to the Minister to disprove it, present concrete proposals, and say what should be done.
It is not enough to refer to an investigation that I and the Center Party initiated, which the government is now implementing. I am sorry, Jakob Forssmed, but it is not enough.
Socialministern Jakob Forssmed (KD)
Madam Speaker! We will therefore work actively on the issue of stopping funding from foreign states to organizations in Sweden that carry out different types of extremist activities. It is decided, and we will do it. The issue is being prepared in the Government Offices. Given that the government has been in power for seven weeks, I can say that the issue is complicated and not easy to handle. But we have set out to do this.
I imagine that this should be welcomed by the member. I also think that the member considers it good that we are to return with sharper democratic conditions, which also facilitate the work of ensuring that religious communities in Sweden are given good opportunities to carry out good and active work with religious activities, worship services, care, diaconia, and so on. But there must be clear criteria that make it easier to apply rules and put a stop to contributions to extremist activities. It is really not to duck, but it is to take the issues seriously and do the thorough work that the issues deserve in order to obtain a functioning regulatory framework for those who contribute to Swedish society, who are a part of our social life, and for those who want to destroy and undermine the same democracy and good values that this country is built on.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.