Translated material
Alexander Verkhovsky spoke in Geneva
On April 29, 2013, hearings on the Universal Periodic Review of the Russian Federation were held at the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva. Alexander Verkhovsky, director of the SOVA Center, spoke at the event “Unprecedented repressions against religious minorities and NGOs in Russia” dedicated to the hearing. His speech was devoted to the problems of “anti-extremism” and new laws affecting not only religious, but also other NGOs, as well as the issue of protecting the feelings of believers.
Anti-extremist legislation remains a big problem in Russia, Verkhovsky said. The main difficulty is the breadth of the definition of extremism. No less questionable is the lack of clear criteria and procedures for proving guilt in these cases. Publicly this is explained by the need for special measures to protect security. Thus, the Supreme Court banned a number of organizations as terrorist or extremist, usually without providing adequate arguments in favor of such a ban. The courts fully trust the investigative authorities, especially if it is the FSB. The most striking example is the ban in 2008 on Nurcular. But Hizb ut-Tahrir is also incorrectly recognized as extremist in Russia, which now makes it impossible to investigate its real activities. The Federal List of Extremist Materials, a unique mechanism for Europe, is ineffective by definition, but the procedure for banning and adding texts to the list is extremely simple. As a result, al-Ghazali’s treatise, ordinary textbooks on Islam, etc. are banned in Russia.
In addition, repressions against various groups do not stop, the speaker emphasized. However, there is no stable trend in this area, since law enforcement is quite chaotic. We believe, Verkhovsky added, that only in 2012 were political activists of various views, Muslim preachers from the Tablighi Jamaat organization, and a publisher of Muslim literature wrongfully convicted on charges of inciting hatred, public calls for extremist activities, and participation in banned organizations. Aidar Khabibullin and others. In 2011, 9 people were convicted of distributing Said Nursi’s books, as well as two people who simply sharply criticized the Russian Orthodox Church.
As a rule, the prosecution is unable to prove the motive of religious hatred or incitement to religious hatred. This often happens because there was no such motive and such actions, Verkhovsky explained. For example, in the case of the punk group Pussy Riot, the harsh and undoubtedly politicized sentence for misbehavior in the temple was based precisely on the fact that the motive for this behavior was hatred of Christians, but nothing of the kind could be proven.
The director of the SOVA Center recalled that in 2009, following the results of the Universal Periodic Review, Russia rejected the recommendation to revise anti-extremist legislation, but since then both the Venice Commission of the Council of Europe and the Ombudsman of Russia have stated the need for its revision, and expressed hope that the legislation will be taken seriously revised to focus on truly dangerous acts that directly or indirectly involve violence.
However, Verkhovsky said, the situation in this area is getting worse. The Pussy Riot case was used as a reason to propose a bill to criminalize insulting the feelings of believers. This bill, adopted in the first reading, suggests that even “insulting beliefs” as such is a crime, which runs counter to the Russian Constitution and international law. The bill has drawn criticism, including from the Supreme Court. Deputies claim that the bill will be softened, but so far there is no certainty about this.
The law adopted in February 2013 in the first reading may also become repressive. It is based on a local law adopted in the Republic of Tatarstan, which gives regional authorities the right to “ establish requirements for the religious education of ministers and religious personnel ,” said A. Verkhovsky.
Religious organizations are required to ensure that their clergy and leaders receive religious education only in Russia. Obviously, this law is aimed at imams who were educated in Arab countries, since they are always suspected of having connections with dangerous groups, and sometimes this is the case. But it is also obvious that such a requirement is disproportionate, not to mention the fact that the legislator has forgotten about many other religions, for example, Catholics or Jews, who also do not have their own education for clergy in Russia. The same bill prohibits those convicted of extremist activities from being members or participants of religious organizations. But religious organizations generally do not have membership lists, and the concept of "participation" is very vague. It is obvious that this law, if adopted, will lead to numerous abuses.
The director of the SOVA Center questioned the assertion that poorly worded laws can be corrected through law enforcement. An example of the opposite, in his opinion, is the application of the well-known law on NPOs as foreign agents. The poor quality of this law leads to numerous problems.
The main problem of the law is the definition of political activity, Verkhovsky noted. As a result, almost any activity is called political activity, including fighting corruption, monitoring the police's compliance with laws, and even helping children with cystic fibrosis. About a dozen NPOs have been ordered to register as foreign agents. The warnings were based on mass inspections of NPOs. More than 2 thousand NGOs have been checked, some of them are religious: Jehovah's Witnesses, Catholics, Orthodox, etc. Although, according to the law, religious organizations obviously cannot be foreign agents. That is, it is still more of an intimidation campaign.
In addition, A. Verkhovsky also mentioned future enforcement of the “anti-Magnitsky law”, which came into force on January 1 of this year, according to which, if funding is not just foreign, but American (including from private individuals), then if there is political activity of NGOs should be immediately suspended. Religious organizations are no exception to this law, he added. And also the application of a new type of article of the Criminal Code on high treason, expanded last year. Now it talks not only about the threat to “external security”, but about the threat to any “security”. What kind of “security” this is, one can only guess, concluded the Director of the SOVA Center.
Same article in other topics: