War for Moscow priests, Hetmantsev’s calls and some money for signature

On Tuesday, July 23, People's Deputies from different factions blocked the rostrum of the parliament because at the conciliation board, Davyd Arakhamiia and the leaders of the two fragments of the OPFL party opposed the consideration of draft law No. 8371 in the parliament.

As a result, the parliament was adjourned until August 20.

"Our representatives in the Conciliation Board voted against putting draft law No. 8371 on the agenda, which led to a protest near the rostrum. But I want to emphasize that all the protesters did not demand the cancellation of further meetings of the Verkhovna Rada. As of today, if it were put to a vote, it would have received at least 240 votes," Mykola Poturaiev, chairman of the Committee on Humanitarian and Information Policy and People`s Deputy from the Servant of the People party, told Suspilne.

On 24 July, in a party chat, Davyd Arakhamia announced another revision of the law.

"We have an agreement with all the factions on how to move forward and put it to a vote at the next session (starting on 21 August). The law is likely to be slightly revised but by consensus. I hope that the State Service for Ethnic Policy and Freedom of Conscience (SSEPFS) will also agree. Preliminary plan: until 15.08 - back-channel work on the international front. 15-20.08 - finalisation in the committee. 21-22.08 - voting in the hall," Arakhamiia wrote, as quoted by LB.UA.

Now they are trying to justify this story behind the scenes by saying that the draft law was rejected because Republicans are against the ban on any churches. And Mykola Kniazhytskyi allegedly made such amendments that now it needs to be rolled back.

These theses are denied by both the chairman of the committee and its members.

"This is a lie, and it is skillfully built into the overall campaign to discredit the law. The campaign is very well written, I will say as an expert," says Mykyta Poturaiev.

"There are no Kniazhytskyi's amendments because all the amendments are joint amendments. There are simply 26 amendments with Kniazhytskyi's signature as the first signatory, and then another fifteen or so other people's deputies, including those from the Servants of the People. And there are 37 or 38 more with Poturaiev as the first signatory. But these are not my edits, because there are 20 more signatures. Therefore, all this is just a lie," the head of the committee emphasized in an interview with Censor.NET.

"Another lie that is being spread deliberately is that this is Poroshenko's law or the hidden law of Kniazhytskyi. This is being done to split the Servant of the People faction, because it is clear that we have contradictions with the ES, to stir up the Presidential Office and to slow down the adoption of the law as much as possible," Poturaiev emphasizes.

When it is noted that his fellow party members are also doing this, he says that "those who are doing this are simply wrong."

"What is the basis of the manipulation? The law was redrafted for the second reading, but it retains the core of the State Service for Ethnic Policy and Freedom of Conscience, and it also contains provisions from previous versions of the draft laws prepared by Kniazhytskyi and Iryna Konstankevych on simplifying church transitions (I and Yevhenia Kravchuk were co-authors). And I immediately warned that these draft laws would be taken into account in the wording for the second reading. But they have changed beyond recognition," explains Poturaiev. He adds that the amendments made by the SSEPFS were also included. And also that the text has a completely new section on the use of communal property.

"Both Catholics and Protestants asked us to do this, because now, if these are not their churches, they rent them at the price of commercial real estate. So that you understand, when the OCU rents the Assumption Cathedral, it is at a price like renting Parkove. Because it is a center and this is a formulaic calculation of the cost. Similarly, the prayer houses of Protestants, which are also located in the center of cities," Poturaiev explained.

He also recalled that a definition of what a house of worship is was added to the text. Because it did not exist before.

"The law has become not just more effective in terms of fighting Moscow's agents, but more comprehensive. Therefore, any return to the wording of the first reading is out of the question," he said.

It would take a long time to retell the entire complex history of the Ukrainian church and the need to eliminate the influence of the Moscow Patriarchate in the text. Therefore, we will focus only on the chronicle of the draft law itself.

The first version of it, as Poturaiev mentioned, was introduced by Mykola Kniazhytskyi.

"At first, I submitted my draft law 8221. Its essence consisted of two most important points. First, we prohibit the activities of the Russian Church in Ukraine for reasons of national security. And the second is that we are introducing the Tomos into the law because it is a state act. Because the parliament appealed to Bartholomew and the Tomos was granted to the church, the state and the people. In Poland, for example, any church can act only with the blessing of the Metropolitan of Warsaw," the People`s Deputy told Censor.NET.

However, his draft law did not pass. For many reasons. On the one hand, the OCU itself was afraid that it would not be able to absorb such a monster as the UOC-MP, and it would disintegrate it from within. You can't expect that from people who greet each other with "I wish you good health" at some churches. On the other hand, the Greek Catholics did not want to because they were afraid that the OCU would become a state church.

And Bankova never liked the draft laws authored by Eurosolidarity.

However, there was a decision of the National Security and Defense Council by which the president instructed the Cabinet of Ministers to submit a draft law to the Verkhovna Rada within two months to prevent religious organizations affiliated with centers of influence in the Russian Federation from operating in Ukraine "in accordance with international law on freedom of conscience and Ukraine's obligations in connection with its accession to the Council of Europe."

Therefore, the Cabinet of Ministers had to submit its own alternative draft, which was written by the State Service for Ethnic Policy and Freedom of Conscience (SSEPFC) and which People`s Deputies regarded as harmless. In the committee, they begin to make amendments, as Poturaiev described above.

There was no longer any mention of the Tomos, but the UOC was supposed to break off relations with Russia.

It should be noted that the Ukrainian Orthodox Church has not had the prefix Moscow Patriarchate in the register of religious organisations and official documents since the spring of 2022. This reference was removed after the start of the full-scale invasion and Hundiaev's calls. But the name of the UOC (MP) can still be seen in the 2021 report of the State Service of Ukraine for Ethnic Policy and Freedom of Conscience. And the religious expertise of the State Service for Freedom of Conscience has shown that the UOC is a structural unit of the Russian Orthodox Church.

"With this law, we are not banning the church, but its ties with Russia," Kniazhytskyi clarifies.

What will this procedure look like now?

"We did not change the SSEPFC process. They (the Service - ed.) have to set up a commission, and it has to examine the existing affiliation. We understand who we are talking about... If they receive enough evidence of affiliation, they issue an order. The organisation has 30 days to comply with the order and eliminate the violation. If they do not comply with the order, the  SSEPFC goes to court. Again, this applies to each individual organisation," Poturaiev explains.

And if earlier this was not much talked about, now it is already being openly articulated - the process will affect the highest levels of this church. Because it is there that the highest level of affiliation with Russia is found. And by court order, such an organization must cease to exist.

As the deputies convince Censor.NET, there are 240-250 votes in favor of this version of the law.

And at this point, there was some communication between the Moscow Patriarchate Church and some government officials, where, according to the publication's sources, this church was even promised the opportunity to receive a second Tomos. Only to gain loyalty.

Although such a procedure would take years.

"As far as I know, this was voiced at a closed part of the conciliation meeting. From the very beginning, this idea was voiced in previous years by those in the Moscow Patriarchate Church who wanted to break off relations with Moscow. It is neither bad nor completely impossible, but it is complicated and will take years. Therefore, if this idea is now being promoted by the church leadership, I would treat it as insincere and an attempt to delay the process," says the Censor.NET source.

At the same time, Kniazhytskyi says that they will also try to remove the clause about the threat to national security.

"There are only two ways in the Convention on Human Rights when a religious organization can be banned. Because a religious organization, like any public organization, can be banned only for reasons of national security. Otherwise, it would be interference in religious activity. There is also a decision of the Constitutional Court in the provision when they considered the right to rename, and it also states that a religious organization can be banned only if it poses a threat to national security," Mykola Kniazhytskyi explains this contradiction in an interview with the publication.

"Now they want to remove this clause from the law. If we do this, it will mean that we have religious persecution. And this law will not stand up anywhere - neither in the European Court of Human Rights nor anywhere else. Although in the practice of the ECHR there are precisely the norms that it is possible to ban the activities of communities for reasons of threat to national security," adds the ES deputy.

Basically, as the deputies say, let the church break off relations with Moscow and no one will move them.

What will happen next? And how will the working group created in the Rada affect the text? "The working group will include members of the conciliation board. But no decision to change the content of the law will be made anywhere but in the committee," Poturaiev emphasizes.

"As of today, out of the two proposals we heard at the conciliation board, I don't see any arguments for either proposal," the committee chairman adds.

The first proposal concerns the request of the SSEPFC to change the law so that the commission that will study the fact of affiliation with Moscow is more independent and includes deputies and the public in addition to representatives of the Service.

According to Poturaiev, the proposal is not bad, but it will require additional time. And he does not rule out that it will be introduced as an amendment later. But do not postpone the draft law.

The second suggestion is to increase the period of time for religious organizations to transition (currently it is six months). But the deputies are confident that this is a sufficient period.

"But if someone obstructs the process, it will cause an even bigger protest than the peaceful and constructive action we organized on Tuesday," says the committee chairman.

For those who didn't understand, the majority of Servants took part in the protest. The letter in favor of introducing the draft law for consideration bears the signatures of 130 members of the mono-majority. "And we are confident that all of ours will be 150," Poturaiev says.

The list of those who oppose the draft law has already been published by the Left Bank: Zhan Beleniuk, Yevhen Brahar, Maksym Buzhanskyi, Danylo Hetmantsev, Pavlo Khalimon, Heorhii Mazurashu, Yurii Koriavchenkov, Serhii Kalchenko, Oksana Dmitriieva, Yuliia Yatsyk (who, once again, left the faction), Maksym Pavliuk, Artem Kultenko, Nataliia Loktionova, Maksym Perebyinis, Marharyta Shol, Pavlo Yakymenko.

For example, the same Khalimon submitted many spam amendments to the law, quoting an article of the Constitution. And Yevhen Shevchenko, an agent of Lukashenko's DIU, submitted more than 80 amendments to the preamble, which, if taken into account, could have led to the law being rejected.

But the most symptomatic thing is that both the head of the Arakhamiia faction and the head of the Tax Committee, Danylo Hetmantsev, are now opposing the draft law. Several people's deputies confirmed that Hetmantsev personally called and asked them not to vote for the draft law.

"And do you realize that everyone wants to have the right to unblock tax invoices by phone," one of the 'servants' said ironically.

Censor.NET asked Hetmantsev for a comment but did not receive a response to these accusations.

The deputies also recounted another "contretemps" while collecting signatures. " Colleagues asked us: Do you pay for signatures? We are being paid for not signing," the deputies said.

Therefore, it remains to be seen whether any of the People's Deputies will be vulnerable to withdrawing their signatures. Although... recently, people's deputies have become more careful about their reputation. "Because no one will hire us as PEPs, and with a damaged reputation, we will not have a political career," the people's deputies say.

The People`s Deputies also did not accept the common position with the OPFL. They tried to convince them that the OPFL would not give their votes. But here the "servants" turned out to be not such "servants" and at least behind the scenes they say that this game can be played together - if the OPFL's votes are important, then they will not give theirs.

And finally, one more question for manipulation. Will the draft law irritate the Republicans? The deputies with whom the author spoke believe that this is not a problem now. But those who build their campaigns on this will continue to speculate on this thesis. "First it was manipulations with weapons, then with financial aid. Do we remember the fakes about Zelenskyy buying two yachts with American money? That's it. And today it is manipulation around the church," Poturaiev notes.

"And you can't stop it. I will say that within the resources we have, we are communicating quite well. I personally wrote a response to the Congressional Commission on Religious Freedom. Oksana Markarova spoke there. Viktor Yelenskyi spoke there, and our delegations traveled from the All-Ukrainian Council of Churches. In other words, we communicate a lot. Of course, if we had more financial resources, we would do more. But now the parliamentary travel fund is not rich," adds the committee chairman.

He also emphasizes that in such communications, for example, at the OSCE level, he has never heard any particular complaints about the law. Except for some specific issues.

At the same time, Ukrainian churchmen have repeatedly pointed out that in the West, the UOC-MP and oligarchs have launched a powerful lobbying campaign against the Ukrainian state. In particular, the cleric of this church, Vadym Novinskyi, who now lives in Western Europe, engaged American lawyer Robert Anderson for this purpose.

"They know that this is a good law and we have enough votes, so they are fighting so desperately against it," Poturaiev says.

Tetiana Nikolaienko, Censor.NET