|
Russian Law on Religion:
Between the Freedom and Discrimination
June 8, 2010
Roman Lunkin
The Law on Freedom
of Conscience of the USSR was adopted
in 1990 and followed with the passing
of the Law on Freedom of Conscience
of the RSFSR (Russian Federation)
in 1990. As the first law of this
kind in Russia, it did not stipulate
any restrictions regarding the registration
and activities of religious associations
and groups. However, precisely because
of such liberalism, this law was
criticized heavily. The Russian
Orthodox Church (ROC) was one of
the main critics who believed at
that time, and still believes to
this day, that it was namely the
Law on Freedom of Conscience of
1990 that opened the gates to allow
many "foreign sects and missionaries"
into the country and filled Russia
with preachers who brought "a spirituality
that is alien to Russians."
Secular authorities,
led by President Boris Yeltsin,
were seeking ideological support
that would be historically grounded,
thereby allowing them to become
stronger and appear more legitimate.
At the same time, the top religious
officials of the ROC demanded penitence
and the rectification of the injustice
the Church was subject to throughout
decades of Soviet persecution. The
ROC was also interested in the restitution
of its property and buildings, as
well as governmental support and
the support of its business, which
it also carried out under the state's
influence.
Beginning in 1993,
a number of legislative bills were
put forward which aimed to eliminate
the principle of the equality of
religions. Among them were bills
that supported the "traditional"
religions (Orthodox Christianity,
Islam, Buddhism and Judaism), granting
them various privileges, while applying
restrictions to the activities of
religious minorities and foreign
missionaries, thereby amending the
Law on the Freedom of Conscience
of 1990. The political struggle
that took place around the preparation
and adoption of the Law on the Freedom
of Conscience in 1997 received extensive
coverage both in English and Russian
media sources, so we will only bring
up a few points on the adoption
and impact of this particular law.
First of all, there
was no consolidated opinion among
the authorities (the presidential
administration and the State Duma
Committee for Relations with Non-Governmental
Organizations and Religious Associations)
regarding the necessity of the restrictions
on the activities of religious minorities
and any increase in legislative
pressure. The most discriminatory
proposals were rejected as a result
of efforts made by human rights
advocates, the leaders of non-Orthodox
religious associations, democratically
minded deputies of the State Duma,
and the members of the presidential
administration of Boris Yeltsin.
For example, Metropolitan Kirill,
who was at that time the Head of
the Department for External Church
Relations (currently Patriarch Kirill),
was actively involved in the in
the drafting of the bill and proposed
the introduction of a 50-year rule
for all religious associations.
In order to become eligible to receive
the status of a legal entity, an
organization must offer proof that
it existed in Russia at least 50
years ago. In the Law adopted in
1997, the required term of existence
on a religious organization's part
in order to obtain the right to
become a legal entity was eventually
set at 15 years.
The restrictions
imposed by the Law on Freedom of
Conscience in 1997 caused a storm
of criticism in the West and in
Russia, coming from both the legal
and the human rights community.
The law essentially divided organizations
into traditional (Orthodoxy, Islam,
Buddhism, Judaism) and non-traditional
(all the rest). The procedures involved
in the establishment of an organization
were changed substantially, reducing
the eligibility for founders and
members.
The right to establish
a local religious organization has
been recognized as only applying
to Russian citizens (Article 9).
Foreign nationals and stateless
citizens (including displaced persons)
may only be considered participants
in a religious organization provided
their permanent residence is on
the territory of the Russian Federation
(Article 3). The Law also introduced
a new definition of a religious
group, which implies a voluntary
association of individuals formed
for the purpose of the collective
practice and proliferation of their
faith, operating without having
undertaken state registration or
having obtained the same legal foundation
and capacity of a legal entity (Article
7). On the one hand, this legal
provision vested in the religious
associations the right to operate
legally, without being subject to
state registration, which is certainly
a positive development. However,
on the other hand, it established
the 15-year "probation" period with
respect to the activity of such
religious associations operating
on the territory of the Russian
Federation (§ 5, Article 11).
In order to overcome
the negative consequences of the
required 15-year period, lawyers
A.V. Pchelintsev, V. V. Ryakhovsky
and G.A. Krylova prepared a complaint
for submission to the court on behalf
of the "Proslavleniye" Pentecostal
Church (in Abakan, Republic of Khakassia).
Around the same time, another similar
complaint was received by the court
from the members of a religious
community of Jehovah's Witnesses
in the city of Yaroslavl. Both complaints
were combined into a single legal
procedure and after a lengthy preliminary
study, were finally considered in
the course of proceedings by the
Constitutional Court on October
21, 1999. In both cases, the Court
was tasked with considering the
constitutional validity of certain
provisions of Article 27 of the
Law of 1997, which restricted the
rights of local religious organizations
that do not belong to more centralized
structures and have no documents
to prove they had been active on
the territory of the Russian Federation
for at least 15 years. On November
23, 1999, the Court found that the
provisions of the law complained
of were indeed of constitutional
validity. However, the judges were
compelled to provide their interpretation
of these provisions which, in essence,
amounted to recognition of the contrary.
According to the
decision of the Constitutional Court,
the provisions of the law referred
to are constitutionally valid only
insofar as they are "in respect
of their effect towards those religious
organizations established before
the coming into force of this Federal
Law, as well as local religious
organizations that are integrated
within the centralized structure
of a religious organization, which
implies that such religious organizations
are entitled to rights as legal
entities in full, without having
to confirm the fifteen-year minimum
term of existence on the territory
of the Russian Federation or without
undergoing an annual registration."
Following this decision of the Constitutional
Court of the Russian Federation,
any community can essentially register
under a centralized religious organization,
thereby obtaining the full rights
of a legal entity.
The combined efforts
on the part of public and religious
figures--and especially the non-Orthodox
Christian denominations (Protestants
and Catholics)--helped to overcome
almost all the negative consequences
of the Law of 1997, the adoption
of which otherwise seemed to have
put an end to religious freedom
in Russia. The required 15-year
period began to apply only to a
relatively small number of independent
religious groups, as well as certain
new religious movements, which tend
to make do without receiving mandatory
registration.
With respect to
the provision on mandatory re-registration
of all religious associations under
the Law of 1997, the term required
to undergo this process was eventually
extended to 2001. Most of the non-Orthodox
communities managed to complete
this procedure. At the same time,
the churches that experienced the
most problems included some of the
largest parishes of the Russian
Orthodox Church. It is also worth
noting that, in the 1990s, many
regions of Russia adopted separate
local laws to regulate missionary
activity, including toughening the
requirements for missionaries and
introducing mandatory notification
of the authorities about their activities.
However, following the adoption
of the Law of 1997 up until the
beginning of this century, most
of the local laws on missionary
activities were repealed as a part
of the process of "bringing the
legislation of the entities of the
Russian Federation in line with
that of the Federal legislation"
(at present, the only existing local
law on missionary activity that
remains is in the Belgorod region).
The outcome of the
first decade of religious freedom
in independent Russia was the formation
of legislation that would allow
religious groups to exist in accordance
with democratic standards. That
is why the Law on Freedom of Conscience
of 1997 eventually became a symbol
of stability in terms of legislation,
given the constantly evolving threats
to the freedom of conscience and
the numerous attempts that have
been made to alter the law. However,
the law managed to lay the foundation
for an informal, extralegal discrimination
of "non-traditional" religious communities,
with the result being that religious
minorities were being deprived of
their leases, expelled from social
institutions, and subject to suppression
regarding their missionary and social
activities. All these cases of prosecution
have become the basis for the formation
of juridical practice on the freedom
of conscience in Russia, as well
as the grounds for numerous complaints
to the European Court of Human Rights
(the first complaint was filed in
2001 by the Moscow branch of the
Salvation Army, which, in 1999,
was refused the right to re-registration
by the Department of Justice in
Moscow, while the court recognized
the organization as one of a "paramilitary"
nature. In 2006, the European Court
ruled in favor of the Salvation
Army; however, it was only in 2009
that the organization was finally
permitted to complete the re-registration
procedure in Moscow).
The proclamation
of the four traditional religions
in Russia and of Orthodox Christianity
as one of the symbols of state ideology
has become a largely informal phenomenon
that has not been directly stipulated
in the legislation. The Constitution
of the Russian Federation and the
Law on Freedom of Conscience of
1997 presented obstacles for any
attempts to change the secular character
of the state officially, and the
discrimination against the country's
religious minorities based on the
xenophobic ideology of authorities
that is illegal and can be disputed
in the courts.
|