[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 177 (Wednesday, December 19, 2001)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E2334-E2335]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




         DO REGISTRATION REQUIREMENTS THWART RELIGIOUS FREEDOM?

                                 ______
                                 

                       HON. CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH

                             of new jersey

                    in the house of representatives

                       Tuesday, December 18, 2001

  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, the ``Helsinki'' Commission on 
Security and Cooperation in Europe recently convened a briefing which 
examined the policies of various governments which require registration 
of religious groups and the effect of such policies on the freedom of 
religious belief and practice. There was evidence that such 
requirements can be, and often are, a threat to religious freedom among 
countries in the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe 
(OSCE).
  As Co-Chairman of the Helsinki Commission, mandated to monitor and 
encourage compliance with the Helsinki Final Act and other OSCE 
commitments, I have become alarmed over the past decade by the creation 
of new laws and regulations in some OSCE countries that serve as a 
roadblock to the free exercise of religious belief. These actions have 
not been limited to emerging democracies, but include Western European 
countries such as Austria.
  Many of these laws are crafted with the intent to repress religious 
communities deemed nefarious and dangerous to public safety. One cannot 
deny that certain groups have hidden behind the veil of religion in 
perpetrating monstrous and perfidious acts. The September 11th 
tragedies have been a grim reminder of that. Yet, while history does 
hold examples of religion employed as a tool for evil, these are 
exceptions and not the rule. In our own country, during the Civil 
Rights Movement, religious communities were the driving force in the 
effort to overturn the immoral ``separate but equal'' laws and provide 
legal protections. If strict religious registration laws had existed in 
this country, government officials could have clamped down on this just 
movement, possibly delaying long overdue reform.
  While OSCE commitments do not forbid basic registration of religious 
groups, governments often use the pretext of ``state security'' to 
quell groups espousing views contrary to the ruling powers' party line.
  Registration laws are often designed on the premise that minority 
faiths are inimical to governmental goals. Proponents of more strenuous 
provisions cite crimes committed by individuals in justifying stringent 
registration requirements against religious groups, ignoring

[[Page E2335]]

the fact that criminal laws should be adequate to combat criminal 
activity. In other situations, some governments have crafted special 
church-state agreements, or concordats, which exclusively give one 
religious group powers and rights not available to other communities. 
By creating tiers or hierarchies, governments run the risk of 
dispersing privileges and authority in an inequitable fashion, ensuring 
that other religious groups will never exist on a level playing field, 
if at all. In a worst case scenario, by officially recognizing 
``traditional'' or ``historic'' communities, governments can reflect an 
ambivalence towards minority religious groups. Such ambivalence can, in 
turn, create an atmosphere in which hostility or violence is 
perpetrated with impunity. The persistent brutality against Jehovah's 
Witnesses and evangelical groups in Georgia is an example of State 
authorities' failure to bring to justice the perpetrators of such 
violence.
  Mr. Speaker, religious registration laws do not operate in a vacuum; 
other rights, such as freedom of association or freedom of speech, are 
often enveloped by these provisions. Clamping down on a group's ability 
to exist not only contravenes numerous, long-standing OSCE commitments, 
but can effectively remove from society forces that operate for the 
general welfare. The recent liquidation of the Salvation Army in Moscow 
is a lucent example. Who will suffer most? The poor and hungry who now 
benefit from the Salvation Army's ministries of mercy.
  Each OSCE participating State has committed to full compliance with 
the provisions enumerated in the various Helsinki documents. The Bush 
Administration's commitment to religious freedom has been clearly 
articulated. In a March 9, 2001 letter, Dr. Condoleezza Rice, National 
Security Advisor, wrote: ``President Bush is deeply committed to 
promoting the right of individuals around the world to practice freely 
their religious beliefs.'' She also expressed her concern about 
religious discrimination. In a separate letter on March 30th of this 
year, Vice President Dick Cheney echoed this commitment when he 
referred to the promotion of religious freedom as ``a defining element 
of the American character.'' He went on to declare the Bush 
Administration's commitment ``to advancing the protection of individual 
religious freedom as an integral part of our foreign policy agenda.''
  Since the war on terrorism was declared, the President has made clear 
the distinction between acts of terrorism and religious practice. In 
his address to the country, Mr. Bush stated: ``The enemy of America is 
not our many Muslim friends. . . . Our enemy is a radical network of 
terrorists and every government that supports them.'' He further 
stated, ``The terrorists are traitors to their own faith, trying, in 
effect, to hijack Islam itself.'' Accordingly, I believe this 
administration will not stray from supporting religious freedom during 
this challenging time.
  Out of concern about recent developments and trends in the OSCE 
region, the Helsinki Commission conducted this briefing to discuss 
registration roadblocks affecting religious freedom. I was pleased by 
the panel of experts and practitioners assembled who were kind enough 
to travel from Europe to share their thoughts and insights, including 
Dr. Sophie van Bijsterveld, a professor of law in The Netherlands and 
current Co-Chair of the OSCE Advisory Panel of Experts on Freedom of 
Religion or Belief, Dr. Gerhard Robbers, a member of the OSCE Advisory 
Panel of Experts and professor of law in Germany; Mr. Vassilios 
Tsirbas, interim executive director and senior legal counsel for the 
European Centre for Law and Justice in Strasbourg; and Col. Kenneth 
Baillie, commanding officer for the Salvation Army in Eastern Europe.
  Dr. van Bijsterveld made the point that ``the assessment of 
registration from the point of view of religious liberty depends 
entirely on the function that registration fulfills in the legal 
system, and the consequences that are attached to registration.''
  She continued: ``A requirement of registration of religious groups as 
a pre-condition for the lawful exercise of religious freedom is 
worrisome in the light of international human rights standards. 
[Needing the government's] permission for a person to exercise his 
religion in community with others is, indeed, problematic in the light 
of intemationally acknowledged religious liberty standards. Religious 
liberty should not be made dependent on a prior government clearance. 
This touches the very essence of religious liberty.''
  Dr. Robbers noted that registration of religious communities is often 
a requirement but ``it need not be a roadblock to religious freedom. In 
fact, it can free the way to more positive religious freedom if 
correctly performed.'' If utilized, ``registration and registration 
procedures must meet certain standards. Registration must be based on 
equal treatment of all religious communities. . . . [and] the process 
of registration must follow due process of law.'' He further noted that 
``religious activity in and as community, must be possible even without 
being registered as religious community.'' He made clear that the 
minimum number of members required for registration need not be too 
many and there should be no minimum period of existence before 
registration is allowed.
  The third panelist, Mr. Tsirbas, opined, ``Within this proliferation 
of the field of human rights, the Helsinki Final Act is a more than 
promising note. The commitment to respect human rights and fundamental 
freedoms, including the freedom of thought, conscience, religion or 
belief for all, without distinction as to race, sex, language or 
religion, basically summarizes the . . . protection of international 
and domestic legal documents. Religious liberty stands out as one of 
those sine qua non conditions for an atmosphere of respect for the 
rights of individuals or whole communities.''
  Mr. Tsirbas also stated, ``If the protection of the individual is 
considered the cornerstone of our modern legal system, religious 
freedom should be considered the cornerstone of all other rights. The 
right itself is one of the most recent to be recognized and protected, 
yet it embraces and reflects the inevitable outworking through the 
course of time of the fundamental truths of belief in the worth of a 
person.''
  Lastly, Col. Kenneth Baillie, spokesman for the Salvation Army in 
Eastern Europe, outlined the experience of registering his organization 
in Moscow. ``In Russia, as of February this year, we are registered 
nationwide as a centralized religious organization, [however] the city 
of Moscow is another story. We have been registered as a religious 
group in Moscow since 1992. In response to the 1997 law, like everyone 
else, we applied for re-registration, thinking that it would be merely 
pro forma. Our application documents were submitted, and a staff person 
in the city Ministry of Justice said everything was in order, we would 
have our signed and stamped registration in two days.
  ``Two days later,'' Col. Baillie continued, ``the same staffer called 
to say, in a sheepish voice, `There's a problem.' Well, it is now three 
years later, and there is still a problem. Someone took an ideological 
decision to deny us, that is absolutely clear to me, and three years of 
meetings and documents and media statements and legal briefs are all 
window-dressing. Behind it all is an arbitrary, discriminatory, and 
secret decision, and to this day I do not know who made the decision, 
or why.''
  Based on the difficult experience of trying to register in Moscow and 
the Salvation Army's subsequent ``liquidation'' by a Moscow court, Col. 
Baillie offered some observations. He noted how ``the law's ambiguity 
gives public officials the power to invent arbitrary constructions of 
the law.'' Col. Baillie concluded by stating, ``We will not give up,'' 
but added he is ``understandably skeptical about religious registration 
law, and particularly the will to uphold what the law says in regard to 
religious freedom.''
  Mr. Speaker, this Helsinki Commission briefing offered a clear 
picture of how the law and practice affecting, registration of 
religious groups have become critical aspects in the defense of the 
right to freedom of conscience, religion or belief. No doubt 
registration requirements can serve as a roadblock which is detrimental 
to religious freedom. The Commission will continue to monitor this 
trend among the region's governments which are instituting more 
stringent registration requirements and will encourage full compliance 
with the Helsinki commitments to ensure the protection of this 
fundamental right.

                          ____________________