When discussing issues of religion and law enforcement, the editorial board could not ignore the position of the Russian Orthodox Church as the largest religious actor in the post-Soviet space. The "Interview" section contains the answers of Roman Silantiev, the official representative of the Russian Orthodox Church, to some of the questions that this issue is devoted to.

Roman Anatolyevich Silantyev-Candidate of Historical Sciences, Associate Professor of the Department of World Culture at Moscow State Linguistic University, Director of the Center for Geography of Religions at the Synodal Department for Church-Society Relations, Executive Director of the Human Rights Center of the World Russian People's Council (http://pravovrns.ru/).

Roman Silantyev: "Russia should not be guided by the European Court of Human Rights"

Roman Silantyev - Director of the Human Rights Center of the World Russian People's Council; Director of the Centre for the Geography of Religions, Synodal Department for Church-Society Relations, Moscow Patriarchate, pc@vrns.ru

Answering the questions by the Editors of the journal, the official representative of the Russian Orthodox Church shared his views upon a number of issues. He believes the state must react through legislation to protect "religious feelings" against intentional offences. He also believes that the freedom of expression should be limited, especially in cases of mass rallies and public events. He makes the point that Russia is not obliged to follow the rulings of the European Court of Human Rights. Silantiev calls to hardening of the 1997 Law of religious

freedom, especially against those religious associations that tend to create conditions for extremism and terrorism, and that the state has a legitimate right to make a preference toward those religions that are the long established and reliable partners.

Keywords: offending religious feelings, freedom of expression, European Court of Human Rights, Russian legislation of the freedom of conscience, traditional religions, extremism, legal pluralism.

Are there any ways to translate the concepts of "blasphemy" and "blasphemy" into the language of secular legal norms? What is the practice in this regard in other, primarily civilized, countries?

I don't think there's much of a problem here. Secular legal norms, even in their modern form, can protect citizens from things that offend them. Nevertheless, as the society develops, it faces new challenges to its peace and stability, which it responds to with new laws. Now we have a problem of mass insults to the feelings of believers, not only in words, but also in actions. The State is obliged to respond to this by adjusting the legislation. What is an insult, the court will decide, based on the data of the expert examination. Cases of damage to business reputation, insult or slander are considered in much the same way now. At the same time, in Europe, a real sentence can be obtained not only for blasphemy (especially in relation to the Islamic religion), but also for Holocaust denial.

Where should the boundaries of the human right to self-expression (artistic, intellectual, etc.) lie? Is it permissible to restrict freedom of expression in the name of protecting religious principles and public morals? If so, to what extent?

One popular example is that the freedom of one person's fist ends at the face of another. Restrictions on freedom of expression are not only permissible, but also necessary. Otherwise, any crime can be declared a performance, which, by the way, periodically happens - for example, the actions of the art group "War" were reduced to damaging or setting fire to police vehicles, drawing obscene pictures on drawbridges and other similar things that are at best classified as malicious hooliganism. The same can be said about the alliance of retired "priestesses of love" "Femen", which openly violate public order and engage in vandalism around the world.

If this kind of "art action" is not stopped by the state, then this problem will be solved by its citizens, who can declare the artistic beating of radical self-expressions by armature as their contribution to the multifaceted contemporary art. This, for example, was clearly stated by the President of the Chechen Republic, Ramzan Kadyrov, when asked about the consequences of holding a "punk prayer" in a mosque. Thus, the question of the limits of self-expression is quite solvable, especially when it comes to public events.

How do you assess the practice of decisions of the European Court of Human Rights, in particular, with regard to religious issues? Should Russia follow the ECHR in its lawmaking and enforcement?

The decisions of this court are generally biased and anti-Russian. I don't think we should pay much attention to them, although they bring systematic losses to the Russian treasury. Apparently, this is considered an inevitable side effect in the protracted process of Russia's integration into the European Union. The ECtHR cannot revoke decisions of Russian courts, nor can it demand changes in our legislation. In this regard, Russia is not obliged to follow the ECHR in any way.

How do you assess the current Russian legislation on freedom of conscience and religious associations? Does this legislation need any changes or additions?

Modern Russian legislation in this area is generally quite good, but it is excessively liberal and compromise-oriented. The 1997 law is certainly progressive compared to the 1990 law, but it is already noticeably outdated - especially with regard to the fifteen-year "probation" period for religious organizations. I believe that the 1997 law needs to be significantly tightened, especially in relation to religious organizations that create prerequisites for the development of extremism and terrorism. This problem is now very acute, especially in the Islamic segment. Also, it makes sense to reconsider

Official registrations of a number of new religious movements - primarily Jehovah's Witnesses, who are increasingly engaged in openly illegal activities.

Is it possible to introduce some kind of legal gradation between religions in a secular state? For example, is it possible to draw a line between traditional and non-traditional religions and would this not violate the principle of equality of all religious associations before the law and their equidistance from the state?

Sure. The state itself can choose those religious organizations that it considers its most long-standing and reliable partners, which have made a serious contribution to its development and unite a significant part of believers. In some places, this scheme is being implemented in the form of concordats, and in the regions of Russia, the practice of concluding social partnership agreements with local dioceses and spiritual administrations of Muslims is beginning to spread - for example, in the Chelyabinsk region. The situation is similar in the sphere of national politics; in certain regions, certain ethnic groups receive certain preferences - like the Khanty and Mansi in the Khanty-Mansi Autonomous Okrug. Again, there are hundreds of nationalities in Russia, and budget funds are allocated mainly to indigenous people. And this does not discriminate against others in any way.

Other examples can be given: all parties in Russia and the European Union are equal before the law, but not everyone gets airplay for TV debates, and not all local authorities carry out joint programs with everyone. Because there are marginal and small parties, and there are large and respected ones, so there are also religions. And this is an objective reality.

How do you assess the prospects for legal pluralism in modern Russia?

Legal pluralism works only in countries with state religions - earlier in the Russian Empire, Muslims could live according to Sharia law, and in modern Iran, Christians are granted similar rights, and

The Orthodox community lives according to the law of pre-revolutionary Russia. In emphatically secular states, special attention is paid to the integrity of the legal field - for example, since 2000 in Russia, regional laws have been brought into line with federal legislation.

Interviewed by Alexander Kyrlezhev

Permanent link to this publication: