Translated material
Commentary by the SOVA Center on the final document adopted at the conference “New Challenges to Freedom of Conscience in Modern Russia”
On June 26, 2012, as part of the conference “New Challenges to Freedom of Conscience in Modern Russia” held in Moscow, religious scholars, historians, human rights activists and other public figures participating in the conference adopted a final document, the text of which is reproduced below.
“ The conference participants consider it necessary to state the following:
1. We consider religious studies an important branch of scientific knowledge, necessary for the constructive development of relations between the state and religious associations, strengthening the principles of freedom of conscience, and preventing inter-religious conflicts.
2. Federal Law No. 114-FZ of July 25, 2002 “On Combating Extremist Activities” does not provide a specific definition of the concept of “extremism”, leaving ample scope for its arbitrary interpretation. In most developed countries, extremism prohibited by law is understood as inciting hostility and hatred in combination with violence or calls for violence.
According to the conference participants, the original, now defunct, version of the Federal Law “On Combating Extremist Activities” contained a more precise definition of extremism: extremist activities included “inciting racial, national or religious hatred, as well as social hatred associated with violence or calls for to violence."
It is the assessment of qualified legal experts, which we share, that returning to language linking extremist activity with violence or incitement to violence will free law-abiding religious organizations from unfounded accusations of extremism.
3. The conference participants support the efforts of the state aimed at truly countering the risks associated with extremism. At the same time, we express serious concern about the current attempts to limit the legal rights of both believers and religious organizations under the pretext of fighting extremism, which entails the infringement of the legal rights of all people to freedom of conscience and religion.
At the same time, to prepare expert opinions affecting the sacred scriptures of authoritative religions, the doctrine and activities of religious organizations, people who do not have the necessary professional qualifications are often involved, and therefore we consider it necessary to establish clear requirements for the qualifications of religious experts, especially in cases related to recognition literature with religious extremist content.
Only specialists with academic degrees in the specialty “religious studies” can be recognized as religious experts.
4. We express our firm conviction that doctrinal texts and other religious literature are the most important component of their internal institutions, in fact, their foundation. They should be fully subject to the provisions of the Federal Law of September 26, 1997 No. 125-FZ “On Freedom of Conscience and Religious Associations”, according to which the state respects the internal regulations of religious organizations if these regulations do not contradict the legislation of the Russian Federation (Article 15 part 2).
The conference participants consider the principle fair and consistent with the spirit of the Law, according to which religious texts, as well as commentaries on them and other religious literature of registered religious organizations, in principle, cannot and should not be the subject of lawsuits and trials on charges of extremism. The relevant norms should be legislated, once and for all freeing believers from investigative and judicial proceedings regarding the sacred scriptures and religious literature of their religious traditions that are humiliating and offensive to their religious feelings .”
The SOVA Center considers it necessary to supplement the adopted document with some comments:
Paragraph 2 of the statement states that “in most developed countries, extremism prohibited by law is understood as inciting hostility and hatred in combination with violence or calls for violence ,” however, it must be recalled that in the legislation of almost all developed countries the term “extremism” is absent .
It is not true that returning to the wording that mentions violence (clause 2 of the statement) will somehow help religious groups, since this clause applies only to social discord (the Communist Party of the Russian Federation insisted on this in 2002).
Problems with the examination of religious literature (clause 3 of this statement) arise more often not because of the low qualifications of religious scholars, but because the experts, as a rule, are not religious scholars at all, more often they are linguists or psychologists, so the issue should not be reduced to revision of existing practice to change the requirements for religious scholars.
The statement stated in paragraph 4 of the statement that “the religious literature of registered religious organizations, in principle, cannot and should not be the subject of lawsuits and legal proceedings on charges of extremism” seems doubtful to us. Although the fundamentals of a religious organization are subject to verification when registering any religious organization, it cannot be guaranteed that all branches of a registered organization will not produce illegal texts. An exception of this kind contradicts both the principle of secularism of the state and simply common sense.
According to the SOVA Center, anti-extremist legislation needs much more significant reform, and it cannot be corrected with the proposed “cosmetic” amendments.
Sources