State Dept. Condemns Russian Religious Clampdown

[Guest Nicole]

The U.S. State Department has condemned the Russian ban on Jehovah's Witnesses.

"The United States is extremely concerned by the Russian government's actions targeting and repressing members of religious minorities, including Jehovah's Witnesses, under the pretense of combating extremism," Acting State Department spokesman Mark C. Toner told U.S. News by email late Thursday night.

Earlier Thursday, the Russian Supreme Court called the pacifist religious sect extremist and ordered the shuttering of more than 300 chapters in the country.

"We call on the Russian authorities to ensure that Russia's anti-terrorism and anti-extremism legislation is not misused to target members of peaceful religious minorities, including the Jehovah's Witnesses," Toner said. "The prosecution of peaceful religious minority groups for 'extremism' creates a climate of fear which itself undermines efforts to combat the threat of radicalization."

Russian prosecutors had argued in court that the group is "a threat to the rights of the citizens, public order and public security."

The Justice Ministry showed pamphlets from the group that it argued posed "a threat to health."

But the U.S. questioned the legal underpinning of such a ban.

"Freedom of religion is critical to a peaceful, inclusive, stable, and thriving society. All religious minorities should be able to enjoy freedom of religion and assembly without interference, as guaranteed by the Russian Federation's constitution," Toner said.

The Jehovah's Witnesses say they will appeal, within the appellate division of the Russian Supreme Court, and possibly to the European Court of Human Rights. 

Corrected on April 21, 2017: This story has been updated to reflect the Russian court's actions and Toner's response took place on Thursday.

https://www.usnews.com/news/world/articles/2017-04-21/state-department-condemns-russian-clampdown-on-jehovahs-witnesses

[Evacuated]

13 hours ago, Nicole said:

"The prosecution of peaceful religious minority groups for 'extremism' creates a climate of fear which itself undermines efforts to combat the threat of radicalization."

Good observation by the US state department that this action aids and abets the development of "extremism". So in falsley accusing and convicting Jehovah's Witnesses, they break the very same laws they accuse Jehovah's Witnesses of violating!

[JW Insider]

19 hours ago, Nicole said:

"The United States is extremely concerned by the Russian government's actions targeting and repressing members of religious minorities, including Jehovah's Witnesses, under the pretense of combating extremism," Acting State Department spokesman Mark C. Toner told U.S. News by email late Thursday night.

What happened at a practical level is exactly that: "Russian government's actions targeting and repressing . . . Jehovah's Witnesses, under the pretense of combating extremism." At some level this happens in the U.S.A. too. A local police department used 9/11 funding to put in millions of dollars in surveillance equipment that floods our suburb, block by block, reaching into the back yards of law-abiding citizens. It can't be admitted to exist, and can't even be used in open courts to prosecute crime, but it is still used to help solve crimes and track crime. And it has been used indirectly for confiscation of property. But it is not used for anything related to extremism or terrorism. Other police forces bought more visible items: tanks and "battering rams" and  military equipment that can never be of much use in a low-crime suburb of 10,000 unless they all decide to start rioting against the next town over, I guess.

But I've asked a Russian brother to translate some interesting commentary internal to Russia, and I've talked to him about it. I'm hoping to get a better sense of what an average Russian citizen might feel about the JW situation. Or at least what various media outlets want us to think they are feeling, or, perhaps, what they are supposed to think about it.

I noticed that the usnews article links to an RT article, which has some comments that run in the same direction as what we are seeing in Russian "public" commentary.

Evidently, many Russian people are not linking the word extremism the same way all of us are. It is not linked with terrorism or violence, but merely "cult-like" behavior. If it's a "sect" like the "Scientologists" then it's extreme. As was shown in earlier comments in other threads on the subject, it's more about the control of lifestyle and life choices. Of course, this is still a load of hypocrisy, because all religions have a right to do this to some extent, and there is no such thing as "totlal control" which is the specter. Some people become fanatical and totally controlled in any religion or ideology. But there is no total control of a whole group of people.

It's probably the fear of choice that is driving this suppression of JWs and others, not the fear of total control. There is a fear that anyone, a poor person, a rich person, a less educated person, or even a scientist, can make a choice to leave the state-sanctioned religion and general ideologies. These persons, especially if it's your mother or son or cousin who converts to become a JW, can cause you embarrassment in a state that expects a high level of conformity among the class of people who work in government careers.

 

The US News article had this line: The Justice Ministry showed pamphlets from the group that it argued posed "a threat to health."

The link goes to RT here: https://www.rt.com/news/385539-jehovah-witnesses-ban-russia/ specifically these points:
 

Quote

 

One of Jehovah’s Witnesses strict beliefs – a complete ban on blood transfusions – can potentially endanger the life of a child, argued Borisova. She cited a case when devout followers of the group refused to give consent for the procedure needed by their child.

The present lawsuit was revolving around Jehovah’s Witnesses’ chief managing organization in Russia, based in St. Petersburg, which is in charge of all its outfits scattered on the Russian territory.

 

Blood policy, education policies, mental health, and the idea that the "chief managing organization" takes marching orders from New York were points that were forefront in the minds of some Russians but did not come across in the review on JW Broadcasting. Evidently the lawyers had a hard time convincing the MOJ that they were really "autonomous."

I'll grab a few of the comments in English, before they disappear from the RT article (comments are not necessarily from Russians, however). Also, where the indentation worked it does not mean that these are dialogues; I left off the names but they are from random people even if appears these might be back-and-forth comments. Some are likely JWs:

• Quote

   

  • Why does Russian Orthodoxy feel so threatened by people which essentially have quite similar views. Is there a hidden hand to this move? most likely...
    • It's been repeatedly pointed out that JW is actually a sect. Look it up, it's all over internet
      • but it's their choice. Forcing things is diabolical
        • Almost all religions try to force things, by mind-washing. Certainly the sects, by their very definition, are the most egregious mind-washers.

   

  • In a free society you have to make your own decisions and be accountable for them- In an authoritarian society the State does that instead. This doesn't look good for Russia, and the weak among you are happy to do away with your free speech and rights of religious choice..
    • This religious choice puts children's lives at risk. Wake up. If you have a problem with it, speak to the Russians.
      • When a religious group conscientiously prevents a person from getting medical care that would save their life, that is called pre-meditated murder, and it is insane. I bet if Russia allowed this, you'd call Putin a killer of little children. Make up you . . .  mind, people! You can't have it both ways.
  • We already have too many wacko cults in America. What's wrong with recognizing main stream religions and leaving sects out of the mix?
    • make your own decisions and put children's lives at risk? I don't. . .  think so. I bet if it was a muslim preventing doctors from treating his daughter because it's prohibited by sharia, you'd be screaming on every corner about prohibiting that religion. jehovah's witnesses are a sect, and there's no place for sects in Russia.
      • Russia is sliding back into the old USSR mindset. What a pity.
        • That's usually the argument that preempts colour revolution and US Bombing. I don't see the Yanks respecting peoples right's to protest, I do see them arresting journalist's, so who has lost right to speech? As far as i know it is THE YANKS.
          • What do you know about free society? Also how do you know that Russia has no freedom? I bet you have never been to Russia. Otherwise you would learn fast how totalitarian your suppose to be free own country is.

  • Freedom of stopping children unnecessarily dying due to foolish beliefs. Yep!

    • If the state deems the practice of refusing blood transfusions to children (an incrediblyvrare instance, because actually when faced with that prospect most JW's give in and agree to the transfusion), then it would be reasonable to intervene. Theft of property and the demonisation of a peaceful religious group is something else entirely. You're a coward. You think having the state shut down freedom of speech and religious practice doesn't make you a "nasty" POS, because you aren't actuvely engaged...See more

  • •  

       

      Pfft, I'm not a coward in the slightest. It isn't cowardly to back the saving of children's lives. You say, most JW's give in, which still means some don't. How would you know what all of the JW's do anyway, you don't! They know the law, but they kept pushing.

      • It's not an issue. Russia just needed to give one reason, blood transfusions, to justify their decision. The reason is ridiculous. There are people who are not JW who do not believe in blood transfusions. What are you going to do about that?

         

        I'm not a part of the Russian Supreme Court or a Russian Government law maker, I won't be doing anything. I don't live in Russia either. I'm just commenting on the new laws, that's what this forum is for, expressing our views. I obviously disagree with people not allowing their children to have life saving blood transfusions because of their religious beliefs, but these decisions are up to the courts and government. What are you going to do, and why do YOU think they have made this

   

Some of the ones I thought were most interesting already disappeared from another page I was tracking yesterday.

Edited to add a couple more:

• Why? It is no secret that Russia has banned or made all foreign NGO's register as foreign agents, these guys are no different and there is more than just this lot coming under the same controls. The door to door activities may be seen as trying to openly subvert the population and with the US's history in doing so I can't blame them.

• I laugh when people say that it must be removed because its a western import. I think the only item in Russia that is not a Western import is the Vodka! lol

• Not a good move. Jehovah's are known around the globe as pacifists. I'm sure Russia isn't going to be winning any points with the Human Rights Council when it starts persecuting them.

 

[Evacuated]

2 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Evidently, many Russian people are not linking the word extremism the same way all of us are

I agree that this distinction is vital in understanding the Russian position in this matter. I would also suggest that confusion around understanding the application of this term is not limited to any particular group

Here's one of our standard definition for extremism:  the holding of extreme political or religious views; fanaticism. That already, (pardon the pun) seems a bit extreme in that it limits the position to political or religious views, and by introducing the term fanaticism, immediately evokes negativity in most minds. In fact, due to the actions of highly publicised and commented on groups, such as ISIS or Al-Qaeda in recent times, a very narrow and negative association with the term is now common in the popular perception.

I found this alternative definition by Drs. P Coleman and A Bartoli more rational: "Most simply, it [extremism] can be defined as activities (beliefs, attitudes, feelings, actions, strategies) of a character far removed from the ordinary." They add this caveat: "However, the labeling of activities, people, and groups as “extremist”, and the defining of what is “ordinary” in any setting is always a subjective and political matter." (Interesting White Paper attached).

Certainly, what is viewed as "ordinary" from a Scriptural standpoint by Jehovah's Witnesses will differ greatly from what is considered to be so by others outside of the faith, and not the least by those who, in Biblical parlance, are termed "the superior authorities". (Rom.13:1).

@JWInsider, I am looking forward to the comments from the Russian brother you mention if you are able to share.

9386_WhitePaper_2_Extremism_030809.pdf

[JW Insider]

1 hour ago, Eoin Joyce said:

@JWInsider, I am looking forward to the comments from the Russian brother you mention if you are able to share.

Absolutely, especially if there is anything new. (He's actually Ukrainian. My sloppiness in calling him Russian.) 

It looks like you hit on the definition closest to what the MOJ was using to rationalize the suppression of JWs. We kind of knew that, but there have been many comments, from non-JWs all over the world that see it the equivalent of "radicalized fanaticism with a propensity to violence". This actually makes the disparity seem all the more ridiculous. Technically, we aren't pacifists, but from the world's point of view, we might as well be.