Refusal is possible

Why is the referendum on the fate of Isaac not contradicts the law

After the decision of the St. Petersburg Horizburkom on the approval of the application to the referendum on the preservation of the Isaacievsky cathedral as a museum (and against the transfer of it, a natural hysteria began.

She demonstrates the fear of churchmen and officials before the fact that the issue, contemptuously declared by them “solved”, can be completely differently decided by the people. She also demonstrates the panic of the authorities of any referendum initiated “from below”.

On March 28, the St. Petersburg Electoral Commission decided that the request for the registration of the initiative group for holding a referendum complies with the requirements of the law. Now the city parliament should decide whether it is possible to bring to the referendum the issue proposed by the initiators (among them are six deputies of Zaks - from Yabloko, “Growth Party” and “Social Revolutionaries”, representatives of “Open Russia”, journalists, civil activists, human rights activists and others). The meaning of this issue is simple: whether the townspeople agree that the St. Isaac's Cathedral, Spas-on-Blood and the Peter and Paul Cathedral remain part of the state museums. If he gives good, the initiative group is registered and must collect 71 thousand signatures of citizens for the appointment of a referendum in a month.

Meanwhile, even before the Gorizbirk approved the documents, the St. Petersburg United Russia - through the lips of the head of his faction in the Legislative Assembly of Alexander Teterdinko, said that the referendum is supposedly “impossible”, because it is supposedly the issue of the implementation or non -fulfillment of the federal law ( on the transfer of property of religious purposes . - B.V. ). And they promised to “fill up” this question in Zaks.

Then, churchmen joined the choir: the head of the Synodal Department of the Moscow Patriarchate on the relationship between the Church with society and the media, Vladimir Legoyd, called the referendum on the status of the Isaac's Cathedral “Legal Nonsense”, since one cannot ask about the need to comply with the federal law. In general, in his opinion, the organization of a referendum is an “attempt to transfer the issue of transferring the temple into an unconstructive channel”. He was joined by the head of the legal service of the Moscow Patriarchate of Igumen Ksenia (Chernoga), who stated that the application for the referendum on the “Isaacievsky issue” has no reason and should be rejected, since the question “is resolved by federal law”.

The fear of officials and churchmen in front of the “Isaac” referendum is understandable. They also know about the data of sociological surveys, according to which in St. Petersburg the number of opponents of the transmission of Isaac of the Church is about three times exceeds the number of supporters, and the result of the referendum is easy to predict. So, it must be prevented - and demagogy is used.

The fact that the authorities are allegedly obliged to transfer to the churches the Isaacievsky Cathedral, and those who opposed the transfer call to violate the law, supporters of the program insisting for a long time. But this is not true, which is easily refuted by a simple example.

In the fall of 2015, the governor of St. Petersburg Georgy Poltavchenko denied the Russian Orthodox Church to the transfer of Isaac. The Russian Orthodox Church did not dispute this refusal, and did not go to court, thus recognizing its legality. In January 2017, the same governor announced his intention to pass the Isaac, while in essence nothing had changed in a year and a half.

This means that the issue is not at all “settled by federal law”, and there is no imperative in the issue of the transfer of Isaac of the Church (as well as other property). Under the federal law, the authorities are not at all obligated to transfer everything that it asks for the ROC. She is obliged only to consider the request of the church on the transfer of property, but it can answer this request either “yes” and “no”.

And if the St. Petersburg authorities can respond with both consent and refusal, the townspeople have every right to demand from it in a referendum to refuse. Even if she intends to answer this time. Because the referendum, according to the Constitution, is the “higher direct expression of the power of the people”, along with the elections. And its results for the authorities are required - they cannot be ignored.

And also about the legality: in the same federal law on the transfer of religious property, there is a norm that it is not subject to transfer to religious organizations that it refers to museum subjects and museum collections included in the Russian Museum Fund.

What does the Museum Fund belong to the Isaacievsky Cathedral? Including frescoes, mosaic on a dome and naves, stained glass, malachite columns, which are a continuous mosaic. And what to do if a decision is made to transfer the Isaac ROC? Cut the frescoes, tear off the mosaic, disassemble the malachite columns - and what remains to convey to the churches? But such an operation falls already under another law-the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, article 214-“vandalism”. Not to mention the fact that the cathedral will be irreversibly disfigured.

The only legal exit is to leave the Isaac part of the State Museum, where, as now, worships can be held. And to stop lies about the supposedly responsibility of the authorities to transfer the cathedral to the churchmen.

If the authorities understood this, the issue would be resolved in the right way without any referendum. But she does not understand this - and therefore the people should make her make the right decision.