Fundamental human right to freedom of religion implies a free change of jurisdiction of areligious community in respect of which there is no clear mechanism for transition.
Fundamental human right to freedom of religion implies a free change of jurisdiction of areligious community in respect of which there is no clear mechanism for transition. However, Bill No.4128, which offers such reform, is being obstructed by pro-Russian MPs (Opposition Bloc) and representatives of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarchate), which was reported by experts at a press conference held in Kyiv on Wednesday, October 19.
“It no longer seems possible to steer away from responding to changes in society,” director of the Department of Religious Affairs and the Ministry of Culture and Nationalities Andriy Yurash says. “Therefore, we propose a new mechanism of regulation of the human right to freedom of religion, as outlined in the bill by MP Yelenskyy (Bill No. 4128 of 23 February 2016 –MPs Yelenskyi, Taruta, Wojciechowski and Kyshkar - author’s note). The Ministry supports this initiative and we believe that it is impossible not to respond to the needs of society and not to initiate practical steps that have to work to resolve the relationship in the religious environment.”
According to the authors of Bill No.4128 byMP Victor Yelenskyy, a lot of injustice and unrighteousness have been accumulated around this bill, opponents of the bill have never suggested any meeting for negotiation or discussion thereof, and we face a serious need for making amendments to article 8 of the basic law freedom of conscience and religion.
The existing law has not yet determined the way of determining jurisdiction, as the European Court noted in 2007, when it defended the right of religious communities to move from the UOC (MP)to UOC Kyiv Patriarchate. The document has already been subject to expert discussion, following which the corrections were made in the aspect of decision-making. The Expert Council to the Department of the Ministry of Culture has presented the results of the debate by 19 experts in different specialties, which confirms it has withstood diverse criticism, according to Yurash. Alongside, he states, new experts are being artificially created who appear from nowhere and try to resist reform.
The mechanism of the bill provides that the decisions are taken at a general meeting of the religious community, and not by a local referendum. Second, the audience will be those who identify themselves as members of a religious community and those who have the appropriate religious practice. Active participation can be tithing, five-time prayer, participation in the liturgy –it is also what the community decides for itself. The state has the rights and will not interfere in the autonomy of religious communities and the procedure under which religious membership is to be regulated, it remains at the discretion of the community. The main mechanism is that people do not only identify themselves with the community, but are also taking religious part in its life. The changes consist in the fact that if a majority decides to change the jurisdiction, they also receive the religious property.
“When changes are being made to the charter of religious organization and when the decision of the community is being approved, the governing body (council, parish, etc.) should determine the legality of this decision. That collection of random people and making politically acceptable decisions is impossible. Sometimes it requires a majority vote, sometimes two-thirds, but without the approval of this decision is not legitimate. To prevent raiding in full, the Council approved Bill No.5657 (the so-called “anti-raider act”), which makes it impossible to grab someone else's property. Once again I would like to emphasize that I am open to professional discussion with those criticizing the bill,” the expert explained the peculiarities of amendments.
The focus is on the requirement for the state to ensure basic human and civil rights, continues Professor Oleksandr Sagan, expert of the Philosophy Institute. Some people believe that this bill will bring discord into society, but we have not seen the evidence of disastrous consequences, “There is no criticism beyond general statements, but it creates a circulation of papers and obstructs the adoption of amendments to the law ... Personally for me it suggests that the project provides a practical mechanism for transition of communities that can become a big problem for the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarchate). They actually managed to block the process of the transitions parishes through court decisions. Today the judicial reform continues, and the cases are being adjourned or heard once every few months. In Ternopil region, there are several villages that have been awaiting the decision for more than a year, and cannot get them.”
Furthermore, according to Professor Oleksandr Sagan, UOC (MP) blocks the option of alternate worship for believers of both patriarchates. The current resolution approved by Metropolitan Onufry banning such worship creates a stalemate: the Constitution has a provision, but it is virtually impossible to implement. While it is not so obvious in cities, in small villages, it creates social tension and even cases of aggression. “The Moscow Patriarchate lobbied the issue of the establishment of a legal entity for the Church and other methods to impede the bill are being invented, such as the establishment of communities with a fixed membership. We shall always think about how a person acquires fixed membership, because the law can only confirm this mechanism,” Sagan summed up.
“Those who oppose this law really want to keep the conflict in the religious environment,” Andriy Yurash says. “In recent years, more than 180 transitions of the communities have been recorded that can no longer be ignored. Conflict between religious communities in Ukraine is growing, and this bill proposes to regulate and help regulate and neutralize the future conflicts. All questions are connected to the issue of ownership and property rights, which is secondary when we remember the human right to freedom of religion. Only after satisfying the religious requirements one can bring the issue of the necessity of property regulation.”
Note that already in the summer interview, the Department head Andriy Yurash emphasized the need to build partnership model of relations between religious organizations and the authorities in Ukraine and explained the problem of transitions to other jurisdictions of religious communities in more detail.