JEVGENI KRIŠTAFOVITŠ ⟩ Estonian Constitution does not protect relations with a terrorist religious association

Jevgeni Krištafovitš, lawyer, civic activist. Photo: Sander Ilvest / Postimees

• Does the absence of conscience fall under the freedom of conscience?

A call to fear God at least a little should not be considered a violation of the right to religious freedom guaranteed by Article 40 of the Constitution of the Republic of Estonia. This is my opinion, based on a theological analysis of Christian doctrine. I am convinced that Christ did not advocate the genocide of peaceful civilians or the killing of women, children, and the elderly, lawyer Jevgeni Krištafovitš (Reform Party) writes.

If someone believes the opposite and prays for jihad, it is true that the Constitution, unlike morality, does not prohibit such faith. However, the public dissemination of such beliefs is contrary to several constitutional guarantees.

From a legal standpoint, the situation is much clearer: no constitution of a democratic state protects the activities of organizations that promote war, violence, and genocide, but rather obliges the legislature and law enforcement agencies to explicitly prevent such activities by all available means, ensuring public security and peace in a broader sense.

If we look at the Constitution of the Republic of Estonia, its preamble elevates the doctrine of internal and external peace as one of the core objectives of the state, which was re-established after half a century of Soviet occupation.

Hence the question: how should the state act in a situation where it has the duty to protect peace, while an organization defends its right to maintain canonical ties with a church that, under the pretext of «freedom of conscience,» calls upon its faithful to commit genocide and other war crimes?

Does the absence of conscience fall under the freedom of conscience? This question brings us to a serious legal dilemma, which the lawyers Evestus and Knjazev in their public letter to the minister of the interior called destruction of the foundations of the Republic of Estonia.

I disagree with such a radical assessment. Governments in France, Germany, the United Kingdom and many other countries have taken strict measures against mosques and religious communities that promote extremism.

I, too, still find it hard to believe that we had to start a debate on this in Estonia with the case of the Russian patriarch, not some random cutthroat from a Middle Eastern desert, who clings to the holy Koran with his blood-smeared hands and promises death on camera to all those he thinks are infidels and apostates on the streets of European cities, which he considers to be full of depravity and filth.

Personally, I see no difference between this abstract pseudo-Muslim massacre and the main disgrace of the Orthodox world – Patriarch Kirill of Moscow (Gundyaev). Therefore, in the legal assessment of the restrictive measures aimed at severing all ties with the religious organization led by Kirill, I'm inclined to support the Ministry of the Interior.

The ministry's plan is based on the most important principles of our Constitution, protects peace and public security, and combats the spread of extremist ideology. Or simply put, as Pushkin wrote, one cannot pray for King Herod – the Mother of God does not allow it.

It is important to note that this approach will be applied also in future situations where religious organizations are directly under the control of extremist and terrorist groups.

In such a case, references to Orthodoxy's millennial history play no role, because the accomplices of war criminals who have violently seized power in the church cannot rely on the protection of the law in their illegal actions.