The Ministry of Justice calls the law to order

How can you understand bill of the Ministry of Justice The text of the bill of the Ministry of Justice with major amendments into the law on freedom of conscience, posted on the website of the ministry, has undergone quite unanimous criticism from a number of defenders of freedom of conscience. And this no wonder: those who value freedom of conscience have long had an attitude towards the Ministry of Justice. already wary. Suffice it to recall the draft law on limiting missionary activity or the creation of a religious council headed by such a person far from objectivity in these matters as Alexander Dvorkin. But now, after a week, you can look at a new initiative ministries more calmly.

It is clear that the authors of the bill sought to regulate some - certainly not all - of the ambiguities and inconsistencies that exist in the current law. In some ways they succeeded, in some ways they didn’t (for example, for some reason mentions the possibility of both liquidating and banning a religious organization for extremist activity, although the prohibition procedure in the relevant law applies only to unregistered associations). But the main innovations of course, two - the rejection of the concept of "religious group" and the expansion of regulation religious expertise.

It cannot be said that by excluding the concept of "religious group" from the law, the authors have due to the ban on religious activities without state registration. In fact, citizens without any law, no doubt, can gather in groups for some activity of interest, whether it be cross-stitching or offering prayers. This unregistered collective activity of citizens limited only by general bans (on marches, etc.).

Critics of the bill, for example, in the Slavic Legal center, fear, however, that local officials may exclude "groups" understand from the text of the law as a call for repressive actions. And any a sane person would not exclude such consequences. Although the same critics rightly remark that if the officials dislike this or that religious association, then official registration does not save from arbitrariness. One can only hope that, immediately or over time, officials will realize that they are not groups of believers registering in no way - this is ordinary, in fact - private, life, which is of little concern to them, if there are no elements of crime.

Should we welcome or criticize the exclusion from laws of such nothing, in general, do not regulate concepts such as "religious group", depends only on what is more important for us - the possible nearest troubles or improvement of the legal framework.

The only legal meaning of the status of a religious group Now it boils down to the fact that such a group, if for one reason or another it does not intends to or cannot enter a centralized religious organization, may register as a group and start counting down the 15 years of service required to register as a full-fledged and independent organization. Healthy this is for completely new religious movements (including those separating from the current existing), that is, quite rarely. Instead, the bill proposes such a group to immediately register as an organization - while it will limited in rights for 10, not 15 years, and not as radically as it is now (for example, representatives of such an organization will not be allowed into hospitals, and cemetery - please), which is some liberalization of the norm.

There is an unusual element of status inequality here. religious organizations, but there is nothing directly anti-constitutional in it, although misunderstandings and abuses are certainly possible and should be thought about in advance. At the very least, transitional provisions are needed so that already existing religious groups registered under the current law as such would be able to use the already accumulated "experience of existence" when they want register as an organization.

The second innovation is the expansion of the powers of the religious expertise - makes a very unpleasant impression. Desire itself officials at any time to check organizations precisely in terms of religious studies alarming, as the purpose of such checks is unclear. Looks like the bill is intended partially legalize the repeatedly criticized order of the Ministry of Justice, issued in February 2009, but does so in an extremely vague and contradictory manner. For example, from order migrated the most amazing subject of examination, namely - verification of the conformity of religious practice with the declared dogma (you can imagine imagine how the experts of the Ministry of Justice delve into the diversity of parish and monastic practices of the Russian Orthodox Church and decide that here corresponds to dogmas and canons, and what does not). True, in the list of reasons for there is no examination of the relevant item. What is it - the search for a compromise on the part of the ministry or simple inaccuracy?

It is easy to assume that the strengthening of the institution of religious studies expertise may be needed precisely to verify new organizations after the expiration of 10-year probationary period, but for some reason this is in the bill just nothing is said.

The suspicion of inaccuracy also appears in connection with the deprivation religious educational institutions the status of religious organizations. Hardly the ministry wanted to somehow infringe, for example, the theological academies of the Russian Orthodox Church. Suspicion creeps in that "institutions" were needed in the bill - instead of the abolished "groups", so as not to abandon the general concept "religious associations" and do not rewrite all articles. That is again the case precisely in the main, first, innovation. Because of which you should not panic, but which deserves more serious discussion.

Sources

• Verkhovsky A. The Ministry of Justice calls the law to order // NG-religion. 2011. October 19.