Paul
Goble
Staunton, July 6 – The
anti-missionary provisions of the Yarovaya-Ozerov legislation have attracted
widespread attention and criticism, but two leading experts say that it is
important to remember that many Russian regions began adopting even more stringent
and restrictive laws against missionary activity more than a decade ago.
Vera Klyuyeva, a senior researcher
at the Moscow Institute of Problems of the Exploration of the North, and
Yevgeny Shestakov, a lawyer at the SOVA Center, say that “the practice of
restricting missionary activity began not at the moment of the development of
this legislation” but farther has been “unceasing over the course of the entire
post-Soviet period” (sova-center.ru/religion/publications/2016/07/d34968/).
Their arguments and conclusions are
important even for those who do not focus on the issues involved in missionary
work because they point to the ways in which repressive measures can emerge
typically out of sight in the Russian Federation in the periphery and then become
the basis for the adoption of repressive acts by Moscow.
Regional laws “about missionary
activity,” the two experts say, exist in Belgorod, Smolensk, Pskov, Voronezh,
Kostroma, Nizhne-Novogorod, Kursk, and Arkhangelsk oblast and in the
Yamalo-Nenets Autonomous District. Twenty other regions have considered such
laws but either failed to pass them or have later reversed them, Klyuyeva and
Shestakov say.
Such legislation began to appear “in
the early 2000s, but the last such law was adopted” on last month. Some regions
had adopted similar laws in the early 1990s, but these were in almost every
case supplanted by the all-Russian 1997 law “on freedom of conscience and
religious organizations.”
But shortcomings and “contradictions”
in that Russian law over time re-opened the issue for regional governments to
act in this area. And their actions,
over the last 15 years, have been truly frightening to anyone concerned about
the constitutional rights and freedoms of Russian believers in particular and
Russian citizens in general.
“What specifically is written in
these laws,” the two ask rhetorically. Given that in the sphere of religious
law, “it is difficult to think up something new … all the local laws resemble
one another” and revive restrictions on religious activity that are very much
like those of the Soviet period.
Perhaps their most unfortunate
provisions are those that make it impossible to distinguish “missionary
activity” from “all other kinds of religious activity,” a failure that opens
the way for the powers that be to oppress not just missionaries but all religious
activities if they decide to do that.
Another common feature of these
laws, the two say, concerns their ban on missionary activity directed at minors
unless the missionaries have written permission from the parents of those they seek
to communicate with. That raises a whole
host of difficult questions, Klyuyeva and Shestakov say.
“How is one to consider Orthodox or
Catholic baptism carried out among infants or the rite of circumcision among
Muslims and Jews? Is this not the spreading of religious faith and religious practice?
Does it not recall the Soviet practice when officials visited the place of work
of parents to conduct explanatory work when they had evidence that a child had
been baptized?”
Or, the two ask, under the terms of
this wave of regional legislation, “is a child to be considered a priori a believer?”
There have been efforts to have
these regional laws declared unconstitutional, Klyuyeva and Shestakov say, but
generally they have been unsuccessful. Now, some of those seeking such a
decision have turned to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. But
no decision on this regional legislation has yet been rendered.
“On the whole,” the two experts
conclude, “the adoption of various regional legislative acts which seek to ‘resolve’
the gaps in federal legislation and in a number of cases to supplant it is
leading only to additional tensions between citizens and religious
organizations.” And that in turn means that the Russian Federation is violating
“the basic rights and freedoms” of its citizens.
No comments:
Post a Comment