Britash support for religious freedom and human rights the USSR

Radio Liberty Research Bulletin
August 23, 1978

Below is a reprint of a leading review of events in defence of the incarcerated Ukrainian Baptist named Georgii Vins. It should be noted that even once was there mention of the tact that he is Ukrainian.

We are reprinting this article in order to acquaint the reader with how the Baptist World with sacrifice and perserverance defends its own. Can the Roman Catholic World be proud of its defense of Catholics in the same predicament? Let us learn from this how to defend our Church and our Brothers-in-Christ.

Britain has long been an active participant in the Western movement in defense of human rights and religious freedom in the USSR. The imprisoned Baptist leader Georgii Vins, for example, has received substantial and consistent support from British organizations. In October, 1974, when Vins was in prison awaiting trial, thirty Christians gathered for a demonstration outside the Soviet embassy in London with the aim of securing his immediate release; they prayed, read his poems aloud, and handed out leaflets and the text of an appeal made on his behalf by Andrei Sakharov.[1]

In February, 1975, at the General Synod of the Church of England, the Anglican Church committed itself to strong condemnation of the countries of Eastern Europe that do not allow religious freedom, and a motion was passed assuring Vins who had just been sentenced to five years in a labor camp and five years in exile, of the Synod’s deep sympathy and prayers.[2] That same month, Dr. David Russell, general secretary of the Baptist Union of Great Britain and Ireland, wrote to the Soviet ambassador in London and asked that consideration be given to the annulment or alleviation of the sentence passed on Georgii Vins, having in mind the state of his health and also the fact that, however mistakenly in your eyes, he has acted from conscience.[3]

Dr. Russell also asked Prime Minister Wilson, who was about to leave for Moscow, to support a plea for clemency for Vins, Keston College, the Centre for the Study of Religion and Communism, announced in January, 1976, that it had started a «Georgii Vins Fund» in which private contributions and the royalties from Vins’ autobiography, Three Generations of Suffering (published in Great Britain by Hodder & Stoughton in January, 1976), will be held in trust for the Vins family.[4]

In May, 1976, Christian Prisoners’ Release International organized a demonstration in Hyde Park that was attended by between 4,000 and 10,000 people from many parts of England as well as from Scotland and Wales. The event was coordinated with similar demonstrations in twelve other countries, where vigils and marches were staged and petitions were submitted to Soviet embassies. A conservative MP gathered a delegation from the rally in Hyde Park to deliver to the Soviet embassy in London a petition with 300,000 signatures for the release of Georgii Vins, but the embassy refused to accept it unless it came throught the mail.[5] The Reverend David Hathaway, director of Christian Prisoners’ Release International, later handed over to the UN Commission on Human Rights and the World Council of Churches a 600,000-signature petition in support of Vins that had been refused by Soviet embassies all over the world.[6]

Members of the Harrow, Middlesex, branch of the NALCO trade union also chose that month to address to the Soviet ambassador in London a plea for Vins’ release. They wrote:

We do not appreciate why the provisions of the Soviet Constitution on freedom of speech, freedom of assembly and freedom of the press, and the separation of the Church from the State are not worked out in practice, and they stated their intention to generate concern for this subject within our National Associations and other trade unions, through Trades Councils, and also within the TUC. We shall also petition Members of Parliament asking them to press trade delegations and politicians visiting the U.S.S.R. to demand full religious freedom as a condition of these exchanges.[7]

References in religious newspapers and on the radio to Vins’ deteriorating health prompted Dr. David Russell to write to the Soviet embassy in London last summer, drawing attention to the question and asking for fuller information. The embassy denied that Vins was in poor health.[8]

Dr. Russell, a key figure in the relations between religious Britons and the Soviet authorities, had always voiced his concern over the plight of prisoners of conscience during his numerous visits to the Soviet Union. He believes that only tact and courtesy can bear fruit in dealings with the Soviet auhtorities. In June of this year he once again turned his attention to Soviet nonobservance of human rights. In a letter addressed to the European Baptist Federation on behalf of Yurii Urlov, he wrote:

The charges against him evidently related to his monitoring of Soviet implementation of the Helsinki Final Act. Quite apart from the propriety of the trial itself, the sentence passed upon him was, in the judgment of many, unnecessarily severe. We have no wish to do anything which would increase tension between the Soviet Union and the West… We cannot, however, keep quiet in the face of what would appear to be extremely harsh treatment.[9]

The Archbishop of Canterbury, Donald Coggan, has also come forward in support of human rights advocates in the Soviet Union. After a twelve-day visit to the USSR in September, 1977, he stated at a press conference in London that he had raised the question of human rights and the fate of certain believers «still under apprehension» — among them Georgii Vins — during his talks with Patriarch Pimen, the head of the Russian Orthodox Church, as well as with government officials and representatives from the Ministry of Culture. «I went out with a deep concern for human rights,» Dr. Coggan said, «and I gave strong expression to our concern.» When he was asked if he thought his expression of concern would have much effect of the Soviet authorities, the Archbishop replied emphatically:

I would hope so. They know that we represent a very very large group of people throughout the world-wide Anglican Communion who share a deep concern for human rights.[10]

In a recent letter to The Times, Dr. Coggan said that the trial and sentencing in May of Yurii Orlov on charges of anti-Soviet agitation appeared to many Western observers to be «a travesty of justice,» and he termed Orlov’s long sentence «savage.» Noting that the USSR signed the human rights provisions of the Helsinki Agreement, Dr. Coggan said:

Dr. Orlov and others are in prison for daring to monitor the Soviet Union’s record as measured against the standard of Helsinki. Soviet leaders seem not to realise how much damage is being done to the reputztion of their country, not merely in the West, but wherever peoples are coming to understand what Soviet communism relly means.[11]

Th officers of the British Council of Churches have also leveled sharp criticism at the Soviet Union over its record on human rights. In an 800-word statement issued in July of this year, they declared:

It is… on the basis of shared international responsibility as well as Christian compassion that we speak for those now being penalised for their human rights activities in the Soviet Union.

The senior churchmen added that, though they «are not in the cold-war business,» to keep silent in the face of such trials as those taking place in the USSR «would be carrying discretion to the point of callousness.» The statement closed with an appeal to the Soviet leadership to recognize «the rights of all Soviet citizens to be actively involved in mankind’s long search for a more humane world.»[12]

Dr. David Russell, in his politely worded letter to the European Baptist Federation, perhaps best summarized the sentiments being expressed by a growing chorus of voices in Great Britain:

It seems to us that trials of this sort are unjustified and we would express the sincere hope that those governments which have signed the Helsinki Agreement will allow and indeed encourage examination and criticism of their internal affairs, not least by their own citizens.[13]

Поділитися: