A/HRC/34/50/Add.1 Danish society owing to their Muslim identity and their choice to wear a hijab. It was striking that young persons who were successfully contributing to Danish society could be regularly and harshly questioned by others just for their religious observance. Perhaps one reason was the continued predominance of a Lutheran understanding of faith as mainly a matter of the heart, which generally should not become “too visible”, unless it manifests itself as “culture”, roughly analogously to the largely cultural role of the Folkekirke. 32. The permanent insistence on more integration mainly addressed to Muslims, in conjunction with a nationalist political rhetoric highlighting “Danishness” and “Christian values”, sends a very ambiguous message to Muslims and may cause feelings of alienation and frustration. One small example concerns regulations in one municipality that cafeterias in public institutions, including kindergartens and schools, must offer pork on an equal basis as other foods. While those who do not wish to eat pork would have access to alternative menus, the officials who promoted the regulation elevate pork-eating into an essential part of Danish identity. 33. The main concern expressed by members of Muslim communities was the negative perception of Islam, which many apparently associated with backwardness, extremism, discrimination against women, violence or even terrorism. In that context, none of the Muslim interlocutors denied that extremist tendencies did exist in the country and that they must be openly and frankly addressed. However, the prevailing feeling among Muslims seemed to be that extremist manifestations of Islam not only received disproportionate attention in public and political discussions, but also were interpreted as representing “real Islam”. In other words, radical voices always seemed to enjoy an “authenticity benefit” in the sense that they confirmed people’s negative expectations, thereby reinforcing an existing fear of Islam in large parts of the society. By contrast, moderate or liberal views expressed by Muslims were often seen as merely “exceptional” and thus much less, if at all, “authentically” Islamic. 34. Muslims interlocutors expressed their dismay at the swift public reactions by some politicians after a television documentary entitled “Under the veil of the mosque”, which had been broadcast a few days before the start of the visit. The documentary unmasked extremist views existing among some imams in Denmark. Without denying that such religious extremism warrants a clear political response, the Muslim interlocutors had been taken aback by the promptness of harsh rhetorical reactions that somehow targeted the Muslim communities as a whole, for instance, by freezing plans to build a mosque. Moreover, some leading politicians reportedly made cryptic statements about putting an end to policies of tolerance without specifying what that meant. The Special Rapporteur sensed anxieties among Muslims that the establishment of new rules concerning the acknowledgment of religious communities could be used in the future to strip Muslim communities from their achieved status positions in Denmark or to develop new tools for controlling religions, particularly Islam. This illustrates a need for more dialogue and trustbuilding between State institutions and Muslim organizations to prevent an atmosphere of increasing suspicion. 35. Some of the remarks made by leading politicians in reaction to the television documentary could hypothetically indicate a political move back to a literal understanding of article 67 of the Constitution, including its far-reaching limitation clause that “nothing at variance with good morals or public order shall be taught or done”. As mentioned at the outset, this would not be in line with the modern understanding of freedom of religion or belief, which does not give free reigns to legislators to impose limitations whenever “public order” interests may be at stake. For limitations to be justifiable, a much more refined set of criteria must be met to ensure that limitations always remain exceptions to the rule that human beings should exercise their rights to freedom, including in the area of religion or belief. 10