Among the new controls on religious activity in the 17-page “Complex Plan of Countering the Ideology of Terrorism in the Republic of Crimea in 2015-18,” approved on January 30 by a decree of Crimean “President” Sergei Aksyonov, are several measures on education (Felix Corley, “Crimea: Religious Freedom Report, March 2015,” Forum 18, March 27, 2015). Under cover of combating terrorism, they not only seek to control religion, but impose restrictions that violate the very nature of education. However, the head of the Crimea’s Anti-Terrorist Commission, AleksandrBulychev, has defended the plan, assuring the religious liberty monitoring organization Forum 18 that no one’s rights would be restricted.

International terrorism has prompted many nations to enact anti-terrorist legislation. But in democratic countries, public opinion and legal challenges work to prevent such laws from infringing on basic civil liberties.In the Russian-occupied Crimea, empoweringthe Anti-Terrorist Commission and the Russian Federal Security Service to control religious education threatens freedom of conscience.

By targeting “non-traditional organizations and sects”without defining these terms, the Plan leaves this broad category open to interpretation by those empowered to execute it. According to Mr. Bulychev, “non-traditional religions” refers to “those who conduct extremist activity, inciting murders.” That is a novel understanding of the term “non-traditional.” Does it mean that a new religion is automatically assumed to be extremist? Are the non-traditional Krishnaites ipso facto suspected of murder? Or has the term “non-traditional” been given a new meaning that has nothing to do with the question of tradition at all?

“Sects,” in the view of the Commission chief, are “unregistered groups which, using religious terminology, try to zombify people and steal their property.” This, again, is an unusual definition of a well-known term. Pentecostals have customarily been considered a “sect.” Does Mr. Bulychevmean that unregistered Pentecostals rob people and turn them into zombies? Or does the term “sect” now refer to mind control and theft, rather than to sectarianism? This illustrates the dangers of allowing government officials to define legal terms for themselves.

The Plan’s measures to “bring order to the exit of Russian citizens abroad to study in Islamic educational establishments” single out Muslims for state supervision. Islam is one of the four religions recognized in the Russian law on religious organizations.The discriminatory policies established in the Crimea violate the legal equality of citizens regardless of belief.Mr. Bulychev states that “the education authorities must know when someone is planning to leave for study.” He adds that the police and local Anti-Terrorism Commissions would also be involved. Police supervision of religious education restricts freedom of religion itself.

Finally, establishing a system to “adapt” individuals who have studied in religious schools abroad “to the contemporary religious situation” smacks of ideological re-education and thought control. If the Russian authorities in the Crimea are concerned that Muslim students may have been radicalized during their study abroad, they should certainly be on the alert for instances of terrorist conduct or advocacy. But trying to modify their religious views violates freedom of thought and belief.

In these ways, the occupation authorities inthe Crimea are restricting freedom of conscience. Similar measures have been used in Russia itself to persecute Muslim study groups and congregations of Jehovah’s Witnesses. Despite Mr. Bulychev’s assurances, it appears that this is one more instance of the baleful effects of Russian occupation on the once religiously free and diverse peninsula.

http://risu.org.ua/en/index/expert_thought/authors_columns/asorokowski_column/59685/

It should be noted that the Catholic Church has no legal standing in Russia.