The city prosecutor's office filed a lawsuit about this.
On September 26, 2024, it became known that the St. Petersburg prosecutor's office demanded that the local Church of Scientology be recognized as an extremist organization. The St. Petersburg City Court registered the corresponding claim on September 11, and its consideration will begin in October.
It is not known exactly what became the reason for filing the lawsuit. It is probably related to the sentence that was previously handed down to Scientologists from St. Petersburg. One of those convicted in this case, the head of the local Church of Scientologists Ivan Matsitsky, is listed as a defendant in the prosecutor’s office’s claim to recognize the organization as extremist.
Let us recall that in August 2023, the Nevsky District Court of St. Petersburg found five local Scientologists guilty under articles on creating an extremist community and participating in it (Parts 1 and 2 of Article 282.1 of the Criminal Code), inciting hatred and enmity (Clause “c” of Part 2 of Article 282 of the Criminal Code), money laundering (clause “b” of part 4 of article 174.1 of the Criminal Code), illegal entrepreneurship and assistance to it (clauses “a”, “b” of part 2 of article 171, part. 5 art. 33 of the Criminal Code). Matsitsky, as the leader of the organization, was then sentenced to six and a half years in a general regime colony and was released from punishment, including the time spent in a pre-trial detention center and under house arrest. Other believers were fined from 600 thousand to 1.3 million rubles.
According to the investigation, Scientologists created an extremist community with the aim of humiliating the dignity of some followers of the doctrine, united in the social group “sources of trouble” (obviously, this was about the category “potential sources of trouble” used by Scientologists). In their regard, Matsitsky issued “ethical orders” under his signature. One of them forbade guilty adherents to participate in auditing (the spiritual practice of communicating with a Scientology consultant), the other, according to media reports, forbade the study of certain sections of philosophy. In addition, the court was accused of distributing extremist literature and promoting the exclusivity of their religion. As the defendants' lawyers reported, in the final version of the charges, the emphasis was shifted from specific actions "to criticism of Scientology teachings, the general goals and methods of the Scientology community."
From our point of view, there were no sufficient grounds to prosecute Scientologists on extremist charges. We are inclined to consider the prosecutor's office's demand to ban a religious association to be unlawful. Affirmation of one's own exclusivity is characteristic of any religion, and the persecution of Scientologists and the banning of their literature on this basis are untenable. According to the concept of Ron Hubbard, outlined in his book “Introduction to Scientology Ethics,” for the sake of the well-being of the majority of adherents, Scientologists are indeed advised not to allow people with certain attitudes into auditing and training, and should not bring them closer to themselves; it is preferable to ignore them. But most religions impose some restrictions on admission to church life and rituals, and advice to ignore someone cannot be considered as a call aimed at inciting hatred or humiliation of dignity.
Sources