Response to interpellation 2024/25:200 on state grants and the public debate
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
The debate concerned state grants to civil society and whether organizations receiving these funds are allowed to restrict democratic dialogue. SD argues that RFSL, which receives almost all its income from the state, shames and stigmatizes individuals who hold different opinions through the Rosa tisteln award 1 2. SD considers this to be aggressive lobbying that contributes to polarization and argues that the state should take responsibility to ensure that these activities do not silence other voices 2 3. L argues that a strong civil society is a cornerstone of democracy and that criticism is not the same as silencing someone 4 5. L emphasizes the importance of civil society's independence 6 but welcomes democratic conditions for grants 6 5.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Statsrådet Paulina Brandberg (L)
Madam Speaker! Nima Gholam Ali Pour has asked me if I intend to work to ensure that organizations that directly or indirectly receive state grants do not engage in the vilification of persons who participate in public debate, and if I intend to work to ensure that organizations that directly or indirectly receive state grants do not limit democratic dialogue.
Initially, I want to emphasize that a strong civil society is a cornerstone of Swedish democracy. Support for association life contributes to giving all people the same basic opportunity to be active in civil society and in that way be participatory in Swedish society. A central principle in the policy for civil society is to respect civil society's autonomy and independence, which is expressed, among other things, by safeguarding a high proportion of general non-governing state grants.
At the same time, it is important for the government to have modern and legally secure conditions for state grant funding. This spring, the government decided on the bill State support to religious communities and civil society - uniform and legally secure conditions (prop. 2023/24:119). In the bill, the government proposed a new democratic condition for state support to religious communities and support from the General Inheritance Fund.
The Government also made the assessment that a democracy condition similar to the one proposed for support from the General Inheritance Fund should apply to other state grant-giving aimed at civil society, if it is not unnecessary.
The Riksdag decided in June this year to adopt the proposals in the bill (bet. 2023/24:KrU7 rskr. 2023/24:271). Based on this, a review of relevant ordinances is underway in the Government Offices.
Nima Gholam Ali Pour (SD)
Madam Speaker! I have submitted a question concerning how RFSL - an organization that is almost entirely financed by the state and the taxpayers - shames people who happen to have a different opinion than RFSL.
Of course, one can mock, shame, and be generally mean in the debate if one so wishes. It is up to each individual, but it becomes a problem if an organization behaves in that way when it is funded by the taxpayers. That means that the state is involved in and promoting an organization that actually restricts a diversity of opinions, and that is very problematic in democracies.
The example I am using in my interpellation question is a prize awarded by RFSL Stockholm called the Rosa tisteln (Pink Thistle). It is a prize that every year goes to a person or organization that during the year has done something that RFSL perceives as having been negative for hbtqi persons' rights.
RFSL writes on its website that the prize can be awarded to someone who has actively opposed the rights of the hbtqi community, expressed homophobia or transphobia, disadvantaged hbtqi persons or been cowardly or indifferent towards hbtqi persons' rights. It is, in other words, a prize where organizations or individuals are singled out as homophobes.
One or another may think it is good that homophobes are pointed out publicly, but those who are pointed out are not homophobes. Over the years, both Dagens Nyheter and Aftonbladet have received this award, and both bourgeois and Social Democratic ministers have received it. The award has also gone to Sverigedemokraterna, the Supreme Court, and the migration court.
It is about a prize for a person or an organization who is clearly identified for having actively opposed the rights of hbtqi persons, but if one looks at who has received the prize over the years and what the justification has been, one sees that it often concerns persons who, on a political level, do not agree with RFSL.
Many of those who have received the award have worked for human rights for several years, but because they do not agree with RFSL on certain issues, they are branded as homophobes.
An independent society should criticize those in power as it wishes. It may be mean. But now RFSL has decided not to be independent. If the state were to withdraw its funds from RFSL, 92 percent of RFSL's income would disappear. Without the state's support, only a fraction of RFSL's activities would remain.
RFSL is therefore not an independent organization, but the state finances the larger part of its activities. Consequently, the state also bears a responsibility to ensure that RFSL does not silence other voices through various methods, which is what they do annually through the prize they award.
It is important that the state takes its responsibility and ensures that the activities financed by the state do not restrict democracy.
Statsrådet Paulina Brandberg (L)
Madam Speaker! It is clear that the interpellator and I have very different views on what might be thought to limit democracy.
As I said in my opening remarks, I see it as a strength in Sweden that we have a strong civil society. We have many civil society organizations that do incredibly important work. Many of these organizations receive state grants. At the same time, they engage in quite extensive criticism, sometimes against me, sometimes against the opposition, and sometimes against individuals.
I think it would be a dangerous path to take to limit the space for civil society by making funding to civil society conditional based on the criticism that might be directed at the interests that they represent.
Madam Speaker! In addition to the general picture that I want to emphasize, I want to say that state grants in general are distributed by authorities based on regulations that contain provisions for the grants. It is also the authorities that are responsible for the follow-up of the grants. I want to be clear that I have full confidence in the authorities' ability to handle both grant decisions and follow-up.
Nima Gholam Ali Pour (SD)
Madam Speaker! There is a big difference between criticism of those in power and public humiliation, which is what RFSL engages in.
This year, the Rosa Tisteln was awarded to Agnes Wold. She happened to have a different opinion on the issue of a new gender identity law. She expressed her views in Expressen and argued for her cause. She was not alone in being critical of the law. The issue was discussed for six hours here in the chamber of the Riksdag. Several doctors were critical of the law.
Many people had opinions, just as one is allowed to have in a democracy. But RFSL chose Agnes Wold as a person who should be stigmatized publicly and pointed out as hostile towards hbtqi persons. The justification was that she had an opinion on an issue that quite many people have an opinion on.
It becomes strange when a state-funded organization shames people for their opinions. Furthermore, these are not extreme opinions, but opinions held by both experts and elected politicians. It is clear that it is about silencing certain people who do not think like RFSL. What we have then is no longer an organization that promotes and supports hbtqi persons, but instead, we have an organization that conducts lobbying for certain opinions. This lobbying is financed by the state.
The first question that arises is: What is the purpose of such lobbying? What is the purpose of an organization that wants to limit the diversity of opinions in society? Why would the state want to finance something such? I would even say that such a procedure is dangerous.
It is one thing that parties that have support among the Swedish people receive party funding to conduct political activities, but how does one justify that tax money goes to organizations that do not have broad popular support, which conduct aggressive lobbying and which try to silence their opponents?
If tax money is to be used for public opinion formation, it must strengthen democracy, not limit it, and it must absolutely not become practice that people who merely express their opinion are branded as bad people by a state-funded organization. It is indirect pressure from the state on different individuals because they happen to hold a certain opinion.
One must keep in mind that this has been ongoing for more than 35 years. Rosa tisteln was distributed for the first time in 1986. RFSL's activities have been funded by the state for quite a long time, and for several decades, people and organizations who only wanted to express their opinion in a democracy have continued to be stigmatized.
It is not right. Even within LGBTQI issues, there are different perspectives and viewpoints. There are nuances. RFSL does not stand for a truth that everyone must adapt to. They do not seem to understand that themselves when they spend year after year engaging in public shaming.
It is actually not too much to ask to demand that RFSL stops trying to silence people, given that they receive 92 percent of their income from taxpayers. There, I believe the Minister has a duty to clarify that activities financed by tax funds should not work towards making people afraid to express their opinions.
Statsrådet Paulina Brandberg (L)
Madam Speaker! I do not intend to repeat what I said in my previous speech. My view is that it is important that we have a civil society that has great room to direct criticism in several different directions and that this is an important part of democracy. That one directs criticism at someone, I mean, is not the same thing as trying to silence someone.
When it comes to state grants, it is clear that it is the taxpayers' money and that we need to have a regulatory framework that determines what we should spend tax funds on. That is exactly why I am glad that we now have a review of the conditions based on democratic conditions. It is, in fact, important that we do not give state grants to organizations that try to push in a direction that is not in line with basic values regarding human rights, equality, LGBTQI, and so on. I think it is important that we move forward with that legislation.
The government, however, believes that we should have a strong civil society and that civil society should still be able to push forward on issues. It should be able to criticize and be active against both those in power and other individuals, and it should be able to express concrete criticism.
Nima Gholam Ali Pour (SD)
Madam Speaker! I would like to thank the Minister for the conversation today.
It is often said that polarization is a major problem in society. I would say that polarization is the symptom of a problem, not the problem itself. The fundamental problem is that people have stopped talking to each other and instead demonize one another. People have different epithets that they attach to different individuals and organizations, and then they stop conversing. It is obvious that under these conditions, we get a polarized society.
I believe that the state should not contribute to a polarized society. RFSL's prize Rosa tisteln, which every year singles out individuals and organizations as homophobic, is a pure contribution to the polarization in society. There is no discussion or conversation, but rather one simply explains that a certain person or organization is homophobic because of his or her views. It is nothing that should be supported with tax money.
We also get polarization when an organization like RFSL believes it stands for a certain truth. Reality is more complicated than that. We must be able to have discussions where a diversity of opinions come forward; that is how it is done in a democracy. The rules of democracy must also be accepted by organizations that are funded by tax money.
My hope is that RFSL next year does not award a prize whose only purpose is to humiliate the recipient. I also hope that the Minister can be clear that organizations that receive state grants should strengthen democracy, not limit it.
I actually have nothing against criticism, but public humiliation of individuals and organizations is something else entirely.
Statsrådet Paulina Brandberg (L)
Madam Speaker! This has been a debate that has clarified that we simply have different views on the issue, and that type of debate is also needed. I would therefore like to thank you for the debate.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.