E/CN.4/1998/6/Add.2 page 24 reprehensible”. In this connection there is no need to emphasize that any comparison between modern Germany and Nazi Germany is so shocking as to be meaningless and puerile. 95. According to the representatives of the groups and communities, with the exception of those of the Church of Scientology, there is, strictly speaking, no obstacle to the exercise of their activities. What they face can be described rather as a climate of suspicion, or latent intolerance, responsibility for which, in their view, lies with the major Churches, which are anxious to preserve their dominant religious status and stem the loss of members to other groups and communities in the field of religion and belief. The major Churches allegedly use their influence with the State for this purpose through its political and administrative institutions, and in particular through public information campaigns on sects, assistance for victims of sects and the Bundestag's Study Commission. This climate is allegedly maintained by the popular press and sometimes reflected among low-ranking civil servants. However, according to these same representatives, by satisfying the demands of the major Churches in the areas referred to above, the State is violating the principle of neutrality. In the view of the Church of Scientology, in addition to the measures described the German State practises a policy of discrimination against it, notably by denying its religious nature and thus refusing to grant it the rights and advantages linked to that status, such as tax exemption, and by applying discriminatory measures such as placing it under surveillance, public information campaigns on Scientology and measures to exclude it from society. 96. On the question of competition between the major Churches and other groups and communities in the sphere of religion or belief, the Special Rapporteur believes there is a need for an ongoing dialogue to avoid maintaining a climate of mistrust or even intolerance within society. 97. In this respect, it is worth mentioning that information should be expanded and diversified. It is only normal for the State to make available to the public information which is objective and as comprehensive as possible, so as to guard it against anything that might undermine its freedom of choice or expose it to unnecessary risks, on the understanding that the right to employ legal means must be preserved and guaranteed to all, particularly those who believe that their interests have been harmed by unsubstantiated or incorrect information. 98. Conducting public information and education campaigns untouched by any form of ideological or partisan indoctrination is one of the proper functions of any contemporary State. The State's obligation to remain neutral applies to the content of the information, which should not be discriminatory, defamatory or slanderous. As has been pointed out in Part II. C, the State's legitimate role in informing and educating citizens has to be performed within precise limits (principles of necessity, fair balance, equity, and value judgements based on facts that have been properly and fairly assessed) and in conformity with the law. In any event, remedies must remain available to individuals and groups wishing to dispute the content of official information and, where necessary, oppose its dissemination.