In its latest report, the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights expressed concern about restrictions on religious freedom in Ukraine. In particular, the organization condemned the dissolution of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (in unity with the Moscow Patriarchate), believing that there were insufficient grounds for such a step.
The UN emphasizes that while protecting national security is important, it cannot serve as a justification for restricting the fundamental right to freedom of religion. According to international standards, such measures must be clearly justified and proportionate to the threat, Glavred reports.
The new Ukrainian law targeting religious organizations linked to aggressor states, in particular Russia, provides for a ban on the Russian Orthodox Church. However, the UN notes that the wording of the law is too vague, which could lead to arbitrary interpretation and restrictions on the rights of entire religious communities.
The UN statement traces a serious discrepancy between the protection of fundamental rights and national security in times of war. Although freedom of religion is an important right, it is worth considering that the activities of the UOC (in unity with the MP) in Ukraine have repeatedly raised concerns due to its ties to Russia, the aggressor state.
Numerous journalistic investigations and official data indicate the cooperation of representatives from the UOC (MP) with Russian intelligence agencies, which poses a threat to national security. Did the UN take these facts into account in its report? The protection of religious freedom should not turn into a tool that covers up hostile subversive activities during war. That is, the UN report fails to sufficiently take into account that the restrictions on the activities of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (in unity with the MP) are a direct consequence of Russia’s military aggression against Ukraine.
The UN also ignores the issue of equality: why has no other religious organization in Ukraine, except for the UOC (MP), caused similar problems? Isn’t this evidence that the restrictions are not aimed at freedom of religion in general, but at a specific structure that serves as an instrument of influence of the aggressor country?
Thus, the UN report demonstrates detachment from the realities of war and insufficient attention to the specifics of hybrid aggression. Any recommendations for the protection of religious freedoms in Ukraine must take into account the fact that religion in the hands of the aggressor could be used as a weapon.
It should be recalled that it was previously reported that the leadership of the ROC and Patriarch Kirill (Gundyaev) himself openly support Russian aggression and promote the ideas of the “Russian world.” In addition, Putin and Gundyaev stood up for the UOC (MP), who complained about the persecution of the ROC in Ukraine and the UOC (MP).
Recall that earlier the ECHR opened a case due to the ban on the activities of the UOC (MP) in Volyn. Also, more than 70% of Ukrainians support the ban on all churches controlled from the Russian Federation in Ukraine, as polls show.
