A. Verkhovsky. Ministry of Justice proposes to sharply limit missionary opportunities

As reported by the Slavic Legal Center, the Ministry of Justice has sent out its draft law “On Amendments to Certain Federal Laws in order to Combat Illegal Missionary Activities” to religious associations. According to the Explanatory Note, one of the goals of the new law is to streamline the chaotic activities of local authorities in this area, and such a goal in itself is quite legitimate.

The Slavic Legal Center was very critical of this bill.

The SOVA Center also offers its own, more detailed, critical comments.

1. The draft criminalizes (amendments to Article 239 of the Criminal Code) what was previously only a basis for the liquidation of a religious association, but not a criminal offense - activities associated with harm to the morality of members of the association or with “coercion to destroy the family.”

Actually, the Criminal Code already has articles relating to moral harm, but, probably, the intention is to expand the scope of criminal law to any “immoral” influences associated with belief or practice. Without denying that such influences are possible, in accordance with the ideas of morality shared by the majority, one should think more than once before expanding the use of such a crude instrument as the criminal law in such subtle matters.

The same article also added activities related to “coercion of alienation... of property in favor of an association,” which, of course, is already criminal.

It remains only to doubt that the legislator and law enforcer are ready to put forward a generally acceptable understanding of what can be considered “coercion” in the context of religious life (this applies to both the issue of property and the issue of family). There is a fear that significant financial contributions or divorce from a non-religious person will be considered as the result of some kind of “zombification” and will bring the co-religionists of the “victim” (we put quotation marks because the victim does not always feel like a victim in such situations) to the dock.

It is clear that the pathos of such an amendment is inspired by the popular mythology about “totalitarian sects,” but - at least according to the letter of the law - all religious associations are under attack.

1. The well-known spatial restriction on insulting religious feelings has been lifted (in paragraph 6 of Article 3 of the Law “On Freedom of Conscience and Religious Associations”, hereinafter simply referred to as the Law): instead of the wording

“Holding public events, posting texts and images that offend the religious feelings of citizens near objects of religious veneration are prohibited”

is now not only prohibited, but also persecuted - along with insulting religious feelings -

“desecration of objects, signs and emblems of worldview symbols by revered believers.”

The spatial limitation was previously absent from the corresponding Article 5.56 of the Code of Administrative Offenses (CAO), from which the latest wording was taken, and this raised doubts about the interpretation of this difference in norms. Now it is proposed to bring the two norms into line - in favor of a more stringent one.

On the other hand, the draft proposes to completely abandon the previous formulation of “feelings of citizens in connection with their attitude towards religion” in favor of the formulation “religious feelings” , which obviously reduces the scope of legal protection at the expense of atheists and people of unclear religious self-identification.

1. Religious organizations are required to submit additional reporting (new paragraph 5-1 of Article 4 of the Law), but - most importantly - it is proposed (Clause 5-1 of Article 4) not to allow persons in whose actions the court found “signs of extremist activity.” Such persons also cannot be founders (addition to paragraph 1 of Article 9 of the Law).

Considering the extraordinary breadth of the definition of the latter, especially taking into account the latest amendments to this definition, adopted in July (see the text of the amendments and our comment - there and here ), religious associations are placed in a very difficult position. Let us remember that this is not necessarily a criminal offense. Due to the breadth of the definition, an act that has not yet been noted either in the Criminal Code or even in the Code of Administrative Offenses can be considered extremist.

If the court recognizes that a certain bishop only justified someone’s unlawful actions, for example, preventing by force the police from expelling believers from a place that was significant to them (a hypothetical situation, but well known, for example, to many Orthodox Christians in Ukraine), this bishop should be like - was removed from the “governing body”.

If we are talking about the founder, then the organization will have to re-register.

1. The bill seriously normalizes missionary activity (new Article 17-1 of the Law). First, it is defined in fact as any “popularization” of a creed or religious practices outside the “church fence,” that is, specially marked places.

This will also include religious processions, and journalistic articles based on religious ideas, and the distribution of religious literature, etc. In principle, such a broad understanding of the mission in itself does not raise objections. Probably many religious people understand this term the same way.

Fortunately, the bill proposes to regulate not all types of mission, but only some of them - direct contact with a person (on the street, by going around apartments, when visiting a number of public institutions (educational, medical, orphanages and nursing homes, places of detention), holding a public event or posting information in a public place. This also includes teaching children religion within the walls of a state educational institution (this is possible on an optional basis in accordance with paragraph 4 of Article 5 of the Law; this paragraph is being amended).

1. Those who are engaged in this activity (hereinafter the concepts of “mission” and “missionary” will be used in the narrow sense just described) must have the appropriate certificates or powers of attorney from the religious association and register in this capacity with the registration authorities. Thus, missionary work is placed under direct control.

Note that for believers of most religions, including Christianity and Islam, this is a limitation on their religious calling as represented in their creed. After all, you cannot issue documents to all believers.

If a missionary lives in another subject of the Federation, then he must also register at his new place of residence, that is, he is not subject to the general rule that allows him not to enter the police passport office for 90 days.

A foreigner can be a missionary only if he has a special visa.

Particularly stringent requirements are imposed on missionaries from a religious group (that is, an association that does not have registration) - they must also provide detailed information about the group’s beliefs and even about all its members.

Of course, those convicted of “extremist activity” are not allowed to become missionaries (the quotation marks here remind us of the specific understanding of this term by Russian legislation).

If we imagine that the authors of the bill were concerned, for example, with the danger of preaching by figures of the Wahhabi underground, these draconian measures could be understood and seriously discussed, but the same thing will affect all religious movements in the country, and these are thousands of religious organizations, not counting groups . For some reason, the authors of the Explanatory Note believe that the adoption of their project will create additional obstacles only for “missionary activities that are incompatible with respect for the freedom of thought, conscience and religion of others and other constitutional rights and freedoms,” but it seems more likely that the adoption of the project will create obstacles for any missionary activity.

1. There are also other restrictions imposed on missionary work, which in some ways seem quite reasonable - for example, not to conduct a mission near a religious building of another religion.

But it raises great doubts, for example, the ban on promising people to get them out of “difficult life circumstances.” But what about the very common practice of combining missionary work with anti-drug and anti-alcohol preaching? Appealing to converts to overcome these “difficult life circumstances” is a common practice of both Christians and Muslims.

1. If an organization invited a foreign missionary, and he committed offenses related to his missionary activities, the organization will be punished by not being able to invite any other religious figures until the offender’s criminal record is cleared (addition to paragraph 2 of Article 20 of the Law).

2. Any violation on the part of the missionary is punishable according to the introduced Art. 5.57 of the Administrative Code, a fine from 1 to 3 minimum wages, and on the part of the organization - from 100 to 300 minimum wages. An official who assists in violating restrictions is punishable by a fine of 10 to 30 minimum wages. (For calculating fines, the minimum wage is assumed to be 100 rubles.)

3. The addition to Article 9 of the Law “On Combating Extremist Activities” proposes maintaining a detailed register of prohibited religious (and public) organizations. (We note that back in 2002 this law proposed maintaining such a register of “extremist materials,” but since then no information about this register has ever appeared.)

An addition to Article 15 of the same law proposes to create a register of individuals regarding whom the court has decided to recognize their activities as extremist - a “federal register of extremists.” A person is removed from the register after a criminal record is cleared or a similar period for an administrative offense is completed.

These registers must be formed within seven months from the date of entry into force of the proposed law. Learn more about registries here .

The appearance of such registers is not in itself unconstitutional and can be useful from the point of view of countering socially dangerous acts. On the other hand, the excessive breadth of the definition of “extremism” may very likely lead to the fact that these instruments will only further restrict human rights.

Sources

• The new bill of the Ministry of Justice of the Russian Federation prohibits preaching to ordinary believers // Slavic Legal Center. 2006. August 22.