Contribution of the Russian Orthodox Church’s Representation in Strasbourg to the public debate on the report by the Council of Europe’s group of eminent person «Living Together – Combining Diversity and Freedom in 21st-century Europe»

The report by the Council of Europe’s Group of Eminent Persons ‘Living Together – Combining Diversity and Freedom in 21^st-century Europe’, which was presented to the Council of Europe Committee of Ministers meeting on May 11, 2011, in Istanbul, has provoked interest among the faithful of the Russian Orthodox Church. Several major Orthodox mass media organisations published articles and commentaries concerning this document. The authors of the report have continued the long-time discussion about a new concept of ‘how to live together’ in the rapidly changing social situation on the European continent. The further elaboration of a detailed concept is the task of all citizens, both believers and non-believers, living in member-states of the Council of Europe. The Russian Orthodox Church Representation believes it necessary to make it own contribution to the formation of a vision of the common European future.

 

How to persuade Europeans to live together?

 

The report gives a great number of examples indicating the growing intolerance and discrimination in Europe, somewhere that until recently has traditionally been reputed to be a problem-free and prosperous continent. The Representation believes that the problem of today’s Europe lies in the fact that both majorities and minorities feel to an equally acute extent a lack of justice in the protection of their rights and respect for them by other members of society in almost all spheres of life – politics, economics, culture and finally in everyday life. However, when reading the report, it seems as though the majority’s rights are already guaranteed. History shows that only an approach based on equality between all groups in a society, both the majority and minorities, can guarantee unity and peace in a multicultural society. A revised European model of social life therefore should be built as much as possible on equitable principles. The multi-national Russian Orthodox Church has always insisted that any decision that has a significant social impact should be based on the greatest possible protection of the rights of all citizens and should be proportional to the contribution made by any one particular group of citizens to society.

 

The Russian Orthodox Church Representation in Strasbourg is  convinced that the rights of migrants should not be seen as a priority over the rights of the population in European countries even for the sake of economic and social expedience of promoting an inflow of new migrants. Nor should any justification be given to xenophobic and racist slogans so widespread among the majority as allegedly protecting its exclusive status in European countries.

 

Equitable policy for increasing the population in Europe

 

While diversity has always been an asset in Europe, it is important to recognise the consequences of a purposeful increase and expansion of diversity. The European population should not think that their very survival is dependent on a further inflow of migrants. It is perplexing therefore to see in the report the affirmation that only the arrival of up to 100 million new immigrants over 50 years will save the welfare of Europe. One of the solutions for the problem of maintaining labour resources in the continent appears to lie in an increase in the birth rate among the traditional European nations as well as an emphasis to be made in teaching the younger generation the ethics of work and moderate material consumption.

 

The justification for an additional inflow of migrants to Europe should be accompanied by a statement about the need to take measures for to increase the birth rate and support family values and large families among the current population in Europe.

 

Equal rights of all the citizens

 

As far as migrants are concerned, the report urges the Council of Europe member states to address practical shortcomings and failures of implementation, particularly as regards equal access to housing, employment, education and health (II Specific recommendations, A. 18). It should not be forgotten however that the Council of Europe member states have different levels of socio-economic development. It is especially important for some countries of Eastern and Southern Europe where the economic and social system is only beginning to develop and to stabilise.

 

Therefore, decisions on the distribution of the immigration flow among European countries and on their socio-economic support cannot be taken ahead of measures for improving the economic conditions of citizens in those countries. Nor can too heavy a load in accepting migrants be placed on well-off European countries which could experience economic and social misbalance, especially in the circumstances of an ongoing economic crisis. For this reason, the report’s proposals to develop European programs for promoting stability and prosperity in regions close to Europe geographically appear to be well grounded.

 

Equal treatment of all migrants

 

It is very important that the Council of Europe’s Group of Eminent Persons emphasises that the humiliation of people, their legal vulnerability and physical and moral suffering is absolutely unjustifiable. At the same time, when seeking the best possible model of coexistence among people of different national and cultural backgrounds in the European continent, while accepting the need for emergency aid to be given to particular minorities in emergency situations, it appears questionable that the problems of only one or a few ethnic, cultural or religious groups should be underlined and singled out as a basic long-term approach. The problems of each group should be considered with equal attention and consideration. Human pain is the same, and it cannot be said that some people suffer more than others. For instance, the report states that in fact there is little or no prejudice expressed against foreigners who come to live and work in a country where they are visually indistinguishable from the majority of its inhabitants, speak the same language, have broadly the same life-style and are able to earn their living (1. Rising intolerance, b. ‘immigrants’ and asylum seekers). However, there is still the problem of attitude shown in Western European countries to those who come from countries of Eastern and South-eastern Europe. Thus, there are cases where executives of private companies in the service sector in some European countries discourage their staff from communicating in Russian with Russian-speaking customers and among shop assistants during working hours, while in business practice employees’ knowledge of several languages in addition to the official one is normally welcomed.

 

Therefore the report’s demand for ‘a more realistic picture of the situation of migrants and of Europe’s current and future needs in the field of migration’ appears to be quite fair. For instance, in Russia the Russian Orthodox Church together with other traditional religions is engaged in developing co-operation with the Federal Migration Service to promote migrants’ better adaptation in society and to contribute to the elaboration of a public and social policy with regard to migrants.

 

Real participation of all people in European countries in socially important decision-making that has a significant social impact

 

A society cannot exist without a system of values shared by all and commonly accepted norms of behavior and laws which should not threaten the diversity. In this connection, the authors of the report propose to develop and strengthen the civic awareness based on equal security for all people in a country and on mutual respect of their differences. At the same time, human rights, democracy, and the rule of law, protected and promoted by the Council of Europe, have been developed and implemented in certain cultural circumstances. These cultural distinctions have a high value for Europeans since not only do they represent their cultural heritage but also they define people’s personal views, preferences and everyday behavior. The question arises: is the aspect of specific cultural and historical conditions and existing traditional views sufficiently taken into account in the development of legal and human rights practices? For instance, the implementation of the value of religious freedom always leads to the emergence in a society of specific religious communities of various sizes and various degrees of influence on it. If Christianity is the majority faith in Europe, then representatives of this religion and their associations should not feel to be ‘violators’ of the freedom of conscience of others only because they exist and prevail, just as Judaism does in Israel and Islam in Turkey. For this reason the ruling issued by the European Court of Human Rights in 2009 about the withdrawal of crucifixes from schools in Italy was taken by many as unfair because there was a violation of the rights of millions who associate themselves with the Christian religion to protect the rights of a single person.

 

The report makes important statements about the participation of people in the civic process regardless of their culture and religion: People who come to live in a new country, and their descendants, should not be expected to leave their faith, culture or identity behind (Proposals for action, I Strategic recommendations, 1). The mass media are rightly reproached for ignoring migrants’ positive experience but rather over-stress its negative aspects without giving migrants an opportunity for voicing their problems and sharing their views of on various problems of social development. Certainly, new inhabitants of European countries, provided they observe the law, should have a right to make their own contribution to the development of the culture of societies they have joined. At the same time, the political and social participation of new Europeans should not be aimed at protecting their group interests but the interests of the whole society. Concern for the interests of the majority will help migrants to gain the sympathy of that core population.

 

Clearly, each group of the population, be it large or small, has a right to adhere to its own culture in a democratic way and this does not have anything to do with the fear of a different culture. We need to see pain on both sides. Migrants suffer ‘morally and materially’ but so do citizens of European countries because of disrespect shown towards their laws, culture and way of life. It hardly appears promising to marginalise the political process of every party or social movement that seeks to protect traditional European values and way of life by describing them as ‘xenophobic’ or ‘populist’. Governments and societies should probably act to protect and develop the culture of the traditional population and to introduce new migrants to it while ensuring the proper rights of the latter. It would be important if both ‘protectionist’ parties and proponents of liberal views could understand the situation in the European continent in this way.

 

Ensuring free participation in public life on the basis of religious views

 

There has always been a discussion on values in society. It would be only fair to listen to and respect the opinion of religious communities on ethical issues on which opinions vary in the public space. It is unacceptable if some opinions which do not call to violence or humiliate human dignity should be stigmatised as unacceptable prejudice or even subjected to legal prosecution. Regrettably, a situation of this kind has now developed around, for instance, the discussion concerning such issues as attitude to same-sex unions and propagation of this kind of relationship as positive among minors, abortion, euthanasia, legalization of drugs, etc. Religious people have the right to criticise such phenomena just as people of different views have the right to criticise ethical stands taken by religious communities.

 

The report contains a constructive proposal for the need to eliminate the discrimination to which religiously-motivated activity in the public domain has been subjected for many decades in Europe. It stated that the Council of Europe and member states should also design a stable and recognised platform to improve their relations with high-level representatives of religions and non-denominational organisations (D. Education, youth, intercultural dialogue, 35). However, the role of religious communities is seen in a rather limited way in the document, restricting it to the field of dissemination of certain religious beliefs. At the same time, there are numerous organisations based on religious views which are active in civil society, carrying out great socially-important work in the fields of education, children’s support, healthcare, environment conservation, etc. For instance, precisely these organisations represent the core of the civil society formed ‘from below’ in the post-communist countries of Eastern Europe.

 

Regrettably, this positive aspect of the presence of religion in society is often ignored. Contrariwise, heightened attention has been given to the view of religion as a source of violence in the form of terrorist activity based on the use of religion for political purposes. In this connection, it is important that the report emphasise with reference to Europol that the principal reason for terrorist actions in Europe has not been religion but political separatism. The Russian Orthodox Church has always maintained this position together with Christians and Muslims in the Caucasus in their joint peace efforts beginning from the late 1980s with regard to Karabakh, the situation in the North Caucasus and in the Georgia-Ossetia and Georgia-Abkhazia conflicts. This mission has been assisted in many ways by the Interreligious Council established in Russia and the Interreligious Council in the CIS which unite Christians, Muslims, Jews and Buddhists. On January 17, 2011, it was agreed to establish a Peace Mission under the Interreligious Council of Russia and to form three groups within it for monitoring and information, legal support, and emergency response to conflicts. The Presidential Council for Co-operation with Religious Associations, at its meeting on March 1, 2011, set up a Commission for Harmonizing Inter-ethnic and Interreligious Relations.

 

The authors of the report have declared the need for Europe to be open to the future and to changes. It is disappointing however that the report shows a certain restraint with regard to possible changes in legislation, considering the practise of different religious and cultural traditions in European countries. If these changes happen freely and if ways for fully-fledged participation and self-expression are found for other traditions present in a society, then religious or distinctive motives and sources for developing legislation and social ethics in particular European countries cannot be excluded. At the same time, we cannot reject the possible voluntary self-restriction to be exercised by all members of a society in particular spheres of life (religious and cultural identity, commonly accepted ethical norms of public behaviour, public safety, environmental conservation) when it is needed to ensure the fully-fledged development of all its citizens.

 

Respect for people’s religious identity

 

The authors of the report have made an important point: Public statements tending to build or reinforce public prejudice against members of any group – and particularly members of minorities, immigrants or people of recent migrant origin – should not be left unanswered (A. Guiding Principles, 17). This principle should also be applied to the traditional religious beliefs of people in European countries. It is gratifying that this approach is supported by the following statement: Distorted or inaccurate accounts of religious beliefs or practices, or assertions that those of particular groups or individuals are characteristic of a religion as a whole, are often expressions of prejudice and also help to spread it (c. Muslims). It is also essential that the report urges to restrain from mockery and humiliation of a religion, its founder and sacred symbols. Unfortunately, there is the following remark further on: But it is not the province of the law or the public authorities to enforce such consideration (A. Guiding principles, 16). Perhaps it is impossible to adopt special laws on blasphemy in a multicultural society, but outrage against people’s religious feelings and slander about the work of their religious  organisations must be stopped by law in order to protect people’s dignity and rights. This position is set forth in the document ‘The Attitude of the Russian Orthodox Church to Deliberate Public Blasphemy and Slander against the Church’ adopted in 2011. Referring to the experience of the ECHR, the document states that in its practice the court does not consider some special rights of ethnic minorities but the right of an individual to the preservation of his ethnic identity as an element of his dignity. This approach may also be applied to questions concerning correlations between freedom of self-expression and religious freedom.

 

Among the very positive points of the report is the recognition of intolerance and hostility towards Christians observed not only in the European countries in which Christians are a minority but also in those where they are the majority. Moreover, the very fact of discussing this problem in a separate paragraph appears to be progress of some sort. Until recently one had an impression that the fate of Christians inside and outside Europe was simply ignored on all international platforms.

 

At the same time the section on discrimination fails to highlight the discrimination on the grounds of religious affiliation and ethical convictions rooted in a religious worldview. In this respect the case of “Lillian Ladele and Gary McFarlane versus the United Kingdom” considered by the ECHR in 2011 is important. To implement the principle of equality it is necessary to elaborate such rules regulating professional work in order to allow taking into account as much as possible the religious views of an employee. The religious identity of every participant in the educational process should be respected in the education system as well. It is necessary not only to support studies of other religions and cultures but to give no less serious support to the study of one’s own religious and cultural tradition as it defines the ethical self-management of a person in his contacts with people of other religious beliefs and non-religious convictions.

 

Ethical platform of the future of Europe

 

The future of Europe is unsafe without the values of freedom, democracy and rule of law. As it is without a solid ethical foundation. The report has repeatedly stated on different occasions that legal mechanisms should be supported by ethical norms that members of a society are called on to cultivate in themselves and to observe by choice in their social contacts. In particular the authors state that people need skills or “competences” which are not automatically acquired, but if they are to be maintained for life, they need to be taught and practised from an early age (B. Main actors for change, 1. Educators). The Russian Orthodox Church has adopted a number of documents insisting on the ethical dimension of public life, including ‘Basic Social Concept’ (2000), and ‘Basic Teaching on Human Dignity, Freedom and Rights (2008). There is a good prospect of using the 2008 “White Paper on Intercultural Dialogue” and the 2011 “Report of Eminent Persons” to form a dimension of the Council of Europe’s activity to support ethical values in European societies. Representatives of traditional religious communities in Europe together with other public institutions which enjoy authority in European societies could play an important role in these endeavours.

 

The Russian Orthodox Church Representation in Strasbourg is open to further dialogue concerning the European concept of ‘living together’ and to participation in concrete projects and activities for its development. In particular, the report proposes in its conclusions to develop a code of good practice on ‘living together in diversity and freedom in Europe’. In the course of this much-welcomed work of the Council of Europe, the Representation is ready to offer examples of positive practices achieved by the Russian Orthodox Church in building interreligious, interethnic and intercultural cooperation.