What's the point of a pointless gesture?

What’s the point of a pointless gesture?

Emil COHEN

O

n the day I am writing these lines (November 16 2005), the organization Human Rights Without Frontiers issued a press release announcing that 500 members and followers of the Society for Krishna Consciousness in Moscow had begun a hunger strike. They are protesting Mayor Luzhkov’s efforts to forbid them to build a temple on land that they acquired legally. Another report, also from Moscow, describes the increasingly frequent instances in which the authorities do not permit ·harmful” churches, such as the Baptist one, for example, to use public meeting-halls for their worship services. At the same time, the mayor’s office will not allow them to build their own. Thus, exactly as in the unforgettable Communist past, religious groups that the state finds objectionable are forcibly ·elbowed” out. The only difference is that now, Orthodox Christianity is the official religion, and for that reason it is not subject to persecution. Furthermore, the denial of the Krishnas’ construction permission took place after a demonstration by Orthodox Christian fundamentalists, who threatened that they ·would lie down in front of the bulldozers if construction begins.”

Viewed against this backdrop, the fact that on October 26 the Bulgarian Interior Ministry banned the leader of a similar movement, Dr. Sun Myung Moon, from entering this country for the next ten years, looks like a harmless prank. The Korean was supposed to deliver a lecture the following day before several dozen guests on the topic of ·God’s Ideal Family: A Model For World Peace,” and with it inaugurate the Sofia branch of his new organization, the Federation for Universal Peace.

The launch did take place, and the organization was founded, but in the absence of its founder.

The media, which had been ruminating for several days on the sensation of the impending visit of the ·scandalous” Moon, mentioned the ban, and then the subject was buried. The fact that with the ban,

both freedom of speech and freedom of religion had been thrown into the garbage, which is the place where all decorations that are no longer in use end up, wasn’t even commented upon in the media - with one hesitant exception (October 29 issue of Kapital newspaper).

It is not irrelevant to note here that the planned Sofia visit was part of a hundred-city tour, and that Dr. Moon was to come to Bulgaria from the Baltics, Poland and Romania, and afterwards he was going to visit Bosnia and Herzegovina. After his Sofia visit did not take place, he went to Ireland, Holland and Switzerland. In Geneva, he spoke before a well-attended gathering at the UN headquarters, the Palace of Nations. The only two countries that denied him entry were Bulgaria and Russia (!).

The official explanation for the police ban was connected with the murder of the banker Emil Kyulev on the morning of October 26. The shooting of one of the president’s economic advisors had sent shockwaves through police circles. The police began a ·campaign of instilling respect among the bosses of the criminal world.” It was probably in connection with this that the organizers of the Sofia visit were informed that there was tension following the murder, that the Interior Ministry could not undertake to ensure the security of the guest, and that for that reason he should not enter Bulgaria.

No written order banning his entry was either shown or sent to his Bulgarian hosts.

This last detail is especially important. The stay of foreign nationals in Bulgaria is regulated by a special law, the Foreigners in the Republic of Bulgaria Act. Article 10 of this law enumerates 15 grounds for which a foreigner may be denied entry in the country. Among them are: the existence of information indicating that the individual

is ·a member of a criminal group” or that he ·engages in trafficking of people and their unlawful entry into this country and passage to other countries.” In addition to this, ·if the foreigner has deliberately committed a crime on the territory of the Republic of Bulgaria, punishable by more than three years imprisonment,” has made ·attempts to enter into the country... using falsified or altered documents,” or if ·it can be supposed that he will spread a serious infectious disease,” or ·he has no means of support available to him...” then he shall not be permitted to enter Bulgaria.

There is obviously no point in listing the rest of the grounds for the refusal of entry. They stem from our country’s desire to protect itself from the entry into it of actual or potential criminals, as well as of people who might become a burden on the taxpayer by taking illicit advantage of social welfare funds. It is also obvious that none of the grounds listed could be in any way applicable to the world-famous and sufficiently wealthy Korean preacher. The important thing here is that every such refusal must be made in the form of a written order. And even more important, in accordance with Art. 46, para. 1 of the Foreigners Act, ·orders for the imposition of coercive administrative measures may be appealed under the conditions stipulated in the Administrative Procedure Act, whereby administrative appeals are addressed to the minister of internal affairs, and court ones to the appropriate district court.” But in order for there to be an appeal, there must be a valid administrative order; there has to be a document. Without one, there is nothing to appeal.

In addition to this, the legislature provided for one particular exception. A foreigner may be denied entry on the basis of Art. 10, para. 1, if ·with his actions he has endangered the security or interests of the Bulgarian state, or if there is information indicating that he acts against the security of this country.” If the denial of entry to a foreign citizen is based on such grounds, he has no right to appeal the measure in court. The thinking behind this provision is clear: whoever is in power at the moment can decide who has ·endangered the security or interests of the state” and who has not - and no independent judiciary has the power to interfere. Thus, in the case of the Reverend Moon, the authorities provided themselves with double insurance: not only is there

no document that could possibly be appealed, even if one should by some fluke appear, then Art. 10, para. 1 can be given as the grounds for denying entry.

There is no doubt that many traditional religions consider the teachings of the Reverend Moon to be heresy.

However, there is also no doubt that in accordance with the Constitution, Bulgaria is a secular state. This means that the opinion of one religious group or another with regard to theological matters, such as what is Gospel and what is heresy, cannot be used as grounds for a decision by the state. Not only that, there is the notion of freedom of thought, conscience and religion (Art. 13, para. 1, and Art. 37 of the Constitution), as well as the freedom to express or disseminate opinions (Art. 39).

But what good are constitutional guarantees, in the face of ·the highest expediency”? This expediency, which is unknown to the ordinary person but fully understood by those in power, has determined that the entry of the individual Moon should be prevented, and that it is not necessary to inform the public about it. Even more so, since its innate instinct feels that a large part of society would have a positive or indifferent attitude about such ·measure” being taken.

Then we must suppose that the authorities simply played a trick on the Korean preacher, and that the murder of Kyulev was simply an unexpected gift of fate. We are by no means calling into doubt the right of the authorities - in this case the senior officials at the Interior Ministry - to have any point of view they choose, such as hating the heretic, anticommunist Moon, or being jealous Orthodox Christians, whose souls howl in pain at the thought of his heretical foot stepping onto Bulgarian soil. But the Constitution, as well as international human rights agreements to which Bulgaria is a party, categorically forbid them from using solely their own personal views as the basis for making decisions that affect the rights of others.

And is there any consolation at all to be had in this whole story? It is back at the beginning of this article. In this country we have not yet reached the level of having a massive hunger strike, provoked by the deprivation of religious rights. And in comparison with the situation in the former republics of the Soviet Union, such as Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan and Belarus, this country is practically paradise. But it remains to be seen, just how long this ·paradise” will last.