A/HRC/34/50/Add.1 46. In discussions held not only in the Copenhagen but also in Aarhus and Vollsmose, the Special Rapporteur sensed a tendency among public officials to handle religious issues, especially in their community aspects, very cautiously and to focus their discourse on the importance of protecting “the integrity of the individual” from religious pressure by the community. There are certainly reasons for such an approach. Among other things, freedom of religion or belief recognizes ambiguous attitudes towards religion, including the freedom not to care about religious issues or to keep them entirely private. Not every individual from a Muslim family background or with a “Muslim name” wishes to fast during Ramadhan. In a somewhat nervous societal climate in which Islam attracts much public attention, it is all the more important to maintain a sensitive approach that avoids putting religious labels on people too quickly, in particular immigrants, who live in complicated and at times even vulnerable circumstances. 47. However, a cautious approach should not lead to putting a taboo around religion. Although religion is not the key to understanding all the challenges connected with immigration and integration, it is certainly an important aspect that warrants attention and should be addressed, always on the basis of respect for human beings and their selfarticulated needs, wishes and identities. This includes accommodating the community dimension of religion, which for many — but certainly not all — migrants may be very important. 48. In immigration and integration policies, religious communities often seem to be seen as part of the problem, i.e. a possible threat to individual freedom, rather than as part of possible solutions. As mentioned above, when asked how they deal with religion, State representatives working on integration repeatedly stressed that the Government would mainly protect “the integrity of the individual”. Of course, this is an important and indeed indispensable part of any human rights-based policy. Depending on the circumstances, it should also include measures to protect some individuals — not least women, or lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender or intersex persons — from pressure that they may experience within their own religious communities. At the same time, it would be problematic to ignore the fact that many immigrants (although perhaps not all of them) may also wish to have sufficient space for the community dimension of religious practice, which is not a mere “secondary” or marginal aspect of freedom of religion or belief. However, the Special Rapporteur repeatedly sensed reluctance, including when talking to government officials, towards accommodating new religious community life in Denmark. Integration policies generally seem to favour an integration of individual migrants into existing (mostly secular) institutions, such as sports clubs, cultural associations and many other organizations, which is good but possibly not enough. 49. According to reports, extremely complicated conflicts have arisen in asylum centres. Having to live in an asylum centre means undergoing enormous stress and frustration, with the risk that tensions arising from whatever reasons — lack of space, language barriers, unclear prospects, etc. — can easily escalate and possibly intermingle with issues of religious or cultural pride. The Special Rapporteur did not visit any asylum centres during his visit to Denmark, but spoke with people who work with asylum seekers staying in such centres. He was told that those in charge of the centres sometimes follow an excessively cautious approach towards religion as previously described, to the extent that they ban any religious practice in the public areas of the asylum centre. While a certain level of regulation is required to ensure cohabitation in such centres, the complete ban of prayer in collective areas seems an unduly restrictive measure that might amount to a violation of freedom of religion if no alternative space is offered for collective prayer. 13