sou · H6B318 · 2018-03-14 00:00:00 — Under its terms of reference, the inquiry is to analyse the effects of the current support system on the religious communities concerned and society in general. The inquiry is additionally to propose a new objective for the State’s support to religious communities and new criteria for receiving that support, including a clearer democracy criterion compatible with free- dom of religion. The inquiry is also to propose new provisions on revoking support and recovering funds paid out. The inquiry’s terms of reference do not, however, instruct the inquiry to form an opinion on whether the State should allocate funding to religious communities at all. In additional terms of reference, the inquiry was charged with surveying the provision of and demand for denominational training in , geared towards religious community leaders. The in- quiry is also to assess the provision of non-denominational training for representatives of religious communities and the demand for such training in religious communities, e.g. training on Swedish society and fundamental freedoms and rights, democracy and gender equality. The importance of the support for the religious communities and society in general The overall view of the inquiry is that state support is extremely important for religious communities. this funding to be reduced or abolished, particularly help with collecting membership fees, this would have major consequences for the activities of the religious communities. Above all, it would place the religious com- munities in a less advantageous position than the Church of . The support is therefore significant as a point of principle, because it places all religious communities on roughly the same footing in terms of conducting religious activities. In this way, the support to religious communities helps to ensure that all people in are able to practise their religion and thus exercise their religious free- dom on relatively equal terms. In addition, the state support helps to give religious communi- ties the fundamental prerequisites they need to carry out activities that are important for meeting people’s varying existential needs. This encompasses those situations in which people turn to reli- gious communities, such as particular life events such as weddings and funerals, and also when in crisis or suffering misfortune. The activities of religious communities in health, the prison and pro- bation service and civil contingency planning, are particularly important in this context. They also play an important role in engagement with culture and the arts, particularly in ensuring that individuals with a foreign background are able to retain their culture and identity. Furthermore, several religious communities carry out a great deal of social work with newly arrived migrants and socially vulnerable people, which is important for individuals who the public welfare system finds it difficult to reach. The inquiry also finds that, to a certain extent, the support can strengthen funda- mental democratic values and stimulate participation in democracy, partly in that the religious communities have to comply with the current democracy criterion, and in that several religious com- munities are organised in line with the tradition of formal societies in . However, the contribution of the religious communities in strengthening fundamental democratic values is not clear in all re- spects, and there are examples of religious communities that have maintained values and structures that restrict individuals in terms of enjoying their freedoms and rights. Grounds for the State to support religious communities In the view of the inquiry, freedom of religion must be seen as the main reason for the State to support religious communities. is obliged to take a neutral stance towards different religious communities. By allocating funding to religious communities and offering help with collecting membership fees free of charge, the State can rest assured that no religious community is given a particularly advantageous position in society in relation to the State. All religious communities thus conduct their religious activities on equal terms and all individuals are granted relatively identical funda- mental opportunities to exercise their religious freedom. Furthermore, the international conventions ratified by state that the State is to promote freedom of thought, conscience and religion. The social benefit provided by the activities of the religious communities is an additional reason for providing support. The religious communities fulfil an important function for many people’s wellbeing, partly by meeting people’s existential needs. This is particularly the case in conjunction with particular life events such as weddings and funerals, but also when in crisis or suffering misfortune. Through their cultural and social activities, the religious communities also contribute towards social benefit. In their activities, the religious communities can also encourage democratic parti- cipation, strengthen democratic values and counteract anti-democ- ratic tendencies. Giving support to religious communities places the State in a better position to conduct dialogue and consult with religious com- munities and forge connections with people who are engaged in them. Proposed new objective of support Given that the inquiry considers that freedom of religion must be seen as the main justification for support, in the future the objective should continue to be that support is to help to create conditions for the religious communities to actively conduct religious activities with a long-term focus. The objective as it currently stands states that activities of a religious nature are to take the form of services, pastoral cure, religious instruction and care. The inquiry considers that there is no reason to define in this what religious activities must cover. Instead, what religious activities are to include will be shown in the definition of the term ‘religious community’. Additionally, the terms ‘services’ and ‘pastoral cure’ are not denomi- nation-neutral, which is another reason for the inquiry to propose a new definition of the term ‘religious community’. The inquiry further considers that the objective should make it clear that state support is to contribute towards maintaining and strengthening the fundamental values on which society is based. The objective would thereby better reflect the Government’s intention, expressed by providing the support, of promoting democracy and participation, with respect for gender equality and the equal value of all people. Some religious communities also seek funding to help develop their work on democracy. Incorporating this into the wording of the objective makes it clear that the funding is intended to help develop and strengthen work on these issues. Because the main justification for the support is freedom of religion, the inquiry does not deem it reasonable or appropriate to formulate an objective whereby the importance of the support for the religious activity is to be followed up, or to require that the support has any specific effects in this respect. The support pri- marily has a value in terms of safeguarding a human right and not primarily in terms of the activities of religious communities that are beneficial to society. Additionally, the government grant is mainly allocated as an organisational grant, which in itself is difficult to follow up. On the other hand, it is possible to carry out overall evaluations of the effects of the support on the basis of the objective of maintaining and strengthening the fundamental values of society. This may, for example, involve evaluating the proportion of women on governing bodies, and the work of the religious communities on democracy and values issues. Changes in forms of support Today the government grant is mainly allocated as an organisa- tional grant intended for the core activities of religious communi- ties. From the point of view of freedom of religion, it is particularly important to protect the independence of the religious communi- ties and there are therefore grounds for the grant to continue to largely be allocated as an organisational grant in the future. On the other hand, organisational grants give the agency less scope to monitor and assure itself that the government funding really is being used for the purposes for which it is intended. does an organisational grant provide any guarantees that the funding will be passed on to the communities and activities that are in the greatest need of support. Therefore, the inquiry considers that the propor- tion of support allocated as operational grants and project grants should increase compared with today’s levels. To support the organisational development of the religious communities, the inquiry also proposes that an appropriate organisa- tion development grant be set up. Such a grant could be of benefit to many religious communities facing difficulties managing exten- sive financial and administrative activities. Operational grants for training representatives of religious communities The inquiry proposes that an operational grant be established, which can be applied for by eligible religious communities or their groups to finance both denominational and non-denominational training of representatives. The background to this proposal is that the theological training courses which currently receive support cannot in themselves be considered to be religious communities and therefore should not be eligible for funding. In addition, from the equal treatment perspective, it is unsatisfactory that not all reli- gious communities are able to receive this operational grant. The inquiry’s proposal will enable all religious communities entitled to support and their groups to seek grants for training that, for example can be given at higher education institutions, folk high schools, in non-formal adult education, or by other training providers, etc. The survey conducted by the inquiry additionally shows that several religious communities express a need for both denomi- national and non-denominational training. Several representatives of the religious communities and their groups lack Swedish lan- guage skills and knowledge of Swedish society, and this can affect their contact with Swedish society and with people who turn to the religious communities. It is also necessary for the religious com- munities to be given opportunities to improve their representtatives’ skills and competence in the field of democracy, particularly in terms of the inquiry’s proposal to more clearly specify the democ- racy criterion. A new definition of a religious community A religious community is defined in the Act (1998:1593) on religious communities as a fellowship for religious activities that includes holding services. The inquiry considers that this definition is un- clear and that it is difficult to make a predictable assessment of what religious activities are. The definition also draws on language and can therefore not be considered to be denomination- neutral. The inquiry considers that the focus of a definition of the term of religious community should not lie in the content of the faith but in the form of activity carried out. The activity covered by the definition must furthermore be such activity as is considered worthy of protection under Article 9.1 of Convention on Human Rights. Religious activity is largely conducted through worship, prayer or meditation. These terms also have a meaning that is well-established among religious communities and the general public. Religious activ- ity usually also includes specific rituals, such as celebrating festivals, coming together around spiritual or existential questions, or devo- tions. The inquiry therefore proposes that the term ‘religious com- munity’ be considered to be a community that conducts religious activity through worship, prayer, meditation or rituals. Under the case law of Court of Human Rights, a religious belief must “attain a certain level of cogency, seriousness, cohesion and importance” to be considered worthy of protection under Article 9.1 of Convention on Human Rights. In the same way, a community’s religious activity must be judged on the basis of its gravity and importance, for example whether it includes regular rites of passage such as weddings and funerals. From an equal treatment perspective, and in the light of the fact that today there are secular belief communities that perform rituals such as weddings and funerals to the same extent as several religious communities eligible for state funding, there may be grounds to also allow such secular groups to be entitled to state funding. The inquiry has not been tasked with proposing a belief-neutral support system, but considers that there may be grounds for the Govern- ment to appoint an inquiry to review whether secular belief com- munities whose activity should be considered worthy of protection under Article 9.1 of Convention on Human Rights should also be eligible for support. The inquiry considers that there are several reasons to continue to require that religious communities eligible for funding have an established and clear organisational structure. People who turn to a religious community and participate in its activities must be able to know how the religious community is organised and who is respon- sible for its activities. It is also crucial to the State that the religious community is a legal entity and has a formal leadership capable of representing and speaking on behalf of its members. According to the inquiry, these needs are best met by the religious community being registered with the Legal, Financial and (Kammarkollegiet). The same criteria regarding the organisa- tion of the religious community will thus apply to both the govern- ment grant and government assistance in the collection of fees. In order for religious communities to be stable and self-sus- taining, it is also important that there are clear criteria governing their finances and accounting. It must not be possible for religious communities to be heavily in debt. Such criteria can be seen as an to those served by the religious communities that the state support is used for the purposes for which it is intended. In addition, the current criterion that the religious activity of the religious community must largely be financed by those served by the community and resident here in must continue to apply. This requirement can be seen as protecting the religious commu- nity’s independence, because a religious community receiving major grants or gifts from an organisation or person outside the com- munity may find itself in a position of dependency vis-à-vis this organisation or person. However, the inquiry considers that the current requirement whereby religious communities must have the right of disposal over the premises they use for their activities is not justified and therefore is to be abolished. There are grounds to set certain formal criteria regarding the minimum number of people served and the length of time activities must have been conducted, as this provides an that the religious community is stable and self-sustaining, and that the support will actually lead to lasting, religious activity. Given that the purpose of the support is to promote freedom of religion, the inquiry considers that these criteria should not be too stringent so as not to exclude several smaller religious communities. The inquiry therefore proposes that the criterion for the number of people served be lowered from 3,000 to 1,000. However, in the future too, activities must have been run for at least five years. The inquiry also finds that there are no grounds for the current criterion on the geographical spread of activities and that this should be abolished. Generally, the same requirement should apply to all religious communities, and therefore the inquiry proposes that the oppor- tunity for collaborative bodies and small religious communities which are part of an internationally religious community to receive support be removed. A clearer democracy criterion The inquiry has drawn the conclusion that it is necessary to in- troduce a democracy criterion in the support legislation for several reasons. Firstly, Chapter 1, Article 2 of the Instrument of Govern- ment imposes upon the State a duty to work positively to ensure that the fundamental values of society are protected. State support should thereby not be awarded to activities that contravene or counteract these values. Through international conventions that has ratified, the is also obliged to protect and promote various rights under these conventions, and for this reason support must, as a rule, be able to be refused should human rights be infringed. The legitimacy of the support also presumes that public funding is not paid out to religious communities that conduct activities incompatible with our fundamental values. The inquiry therefore judges that a democracy criterion should be set, irrespec- tive of the in which the support is granted, i.e. also cover- ing state assistance in collecting membership fees. Refusal of entitlement to support may result in restricting freedom of religion It is the assessment of the inquiry that a refusal to recognise a religious community as being eligible for support due to the fact that it fails to meet the democracy criterion may in some cases involve restricting freedom of religion under Con- vention on Human Rights. The case law of Court of Human Rights shows that it is not for a State to evaluate the legit- imacy of different faiths or the way in which they are expressed or manifested. Convention on Human Rights also pro- vides extremely strong protection for the autonomy and internal life of religious communities. According to the religious communi- ties, actions that can be considered to contravene the democracy criterion are often closely linked to their religious teachings or internal circumstances. Convention on Human Rights permits restric- tions to freedom of religion under certain stated conditions. Such restrictions must be laid down by law, have a certain legitimate purpose and be considered to be necessary in a democratic society. Because a refusal to recognise a religious community as eligible for support may mean restricting freedom of religion, the democracy criterion must be clearly regulated and worded on the basis of values that are considered to be particularly worthy of protection in a democratic society. The current democracy criterion is associated with several problems The inquiry considers that the current democracy criterion is associated with several problems. Firstly, the criterion is vague and unclearly worded and is therefore difficult to apply in practice. Setting requirements that the religious community must contribute to maintaining and strengthening the fundamental values of society makes the criterion unclear, because all religious communities could be considered to contribute in some way or other. Additionally, there is no consistent and exhaustive description of what is meant by the fundamental values on which society is based. The religious community therefore cannot clearly predict which actions on their part might lead to entitlement to support being refused. The lack of clarity also increases the risk of discretionary assessments and arbitrary decisions on the part of decision-makers, which is un- acceptable considering that refusing entitlement to support may involve restricting religious freedom. In addition, the preparatory works when drafting the current democracy criterion are unclear and contradictory, partly because they state that the State is not permitted to make any more detailed assessment of the community’s teachings in relation to the common values of society, while the actions mentioned often concern differ- ent religious beliefs. Another major problem with the preparatory works is that they pay too attention to the relationship between the democracy criterion and freedom of religion and fail to address protection of freedom of religion under Convention on Human Rights at all. The democracy criterion should be worded on the basis of clearly stated grounds for exclusion The inquiry considers that the democracy criterion should be worded in such a way as to exclude religious communities that act in contravention of fundamental values in Swedish society that are particularly worthy of protection. The legislator would thereby be able to state when restriction of freedom of religion is justified. Regulation would thus be limited to situations where it really is necessary for the State to intervene. Furthermore, this would make it easier for the religious communities to predict in advance which actions might lead to entitlement to support being refused and would limit decision-makers’ opportunities to make arbitrary assess- ments. It would also make it possible to strike a reasonable balance between the State’s need for control and the religious communities’ need for privacy and independence, while facilitating application in practice. The inquiry is aware that a democracy criterion with grounds for exclusion has shortcomings. For example, there is a risk that by stating clear grounds for exclusion, actions from which the State would wish to distance itself, but which were not predicted, or which only become relevant in the light of changes in our values, might be missed. The inquiry considers that such shortcomings are the price of predictable and clear legislation. The actions of the religious communities and their groups, representatives and speakers may prove grounds for exclusion In line with the inquiry’s proposal, support will not be granted if the religious community or any of its groups or representatives acts in such a way as stated in any of the grounds for exclusion. This not only concerns legal representatives, but also people who may be considered to represent in other ways the religious community in relation to those it serves or the general public, such as formally appointed or employed religious leaders, teachers, etc. Responsibi- lity for the actions of the representative only becomes relevant when the representative acts within the remit of the religious community’s activity or that of one of its groups. A religious community and its groups also bear major respon- sibility for speakers, etc. invited in. If a religious community or one of its groups invites in a speaker who advocates hate against certain groups, for example, this legitimises the speaker and their opinions. Granting support to such a religious community or group is in- compatible with the aim of helping to maintain and strengthen the fundamental values on which society is based. Points of departure for grounds for exclusion Fundamental values that can be considered to be particularly worthy of protection in Swedish society are set out in Chapter 1, Article 2 of the Instrument of Government. This provision largely rests on the international conventions that has ratified, such as Convention on Human Rights, the UN’s International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Con- vention on the Rights of the Child. It covers values such as the equal worth of all and the and dignity of the individual, the ideals of democracy, participation and equality and protection against discrimination, the private and family lives of the individual and the rights of the child. These are values that are seen as partic- ularly worthy of protection in a democratic society, and actions that infringe these may restrict other people’s freedoms and rights. The inquiry has focused on the values that may be of particular importance in relation to religious communities.