/ The People Who Are Steadfast Under Persecution /

The People Who Are Steadfast Under Persecution

Chapter 3

30%

A 16

Preparing to Ban Jehovah’s Witnesses in Russia: Some Literature and a Number of Communities Declared Extremist

The First Attempt to Ban Jehovah’s Witnesses – Initiated by Anti-Cultists in the Mid-1990s

The first large-scale attempt to succeed in banning Jehovah’s Witnesses in Russia was made in the mid-1990s at the initiative of one of the anti-sect organizations, the Committee to Save Youth from Totalitarian Sects. The intention of the anti-cultists was first to ban the Moscow community of Jehovah’s Witnesses and then to spread this
experiment” throughout Russia.

The Committee to Save Youth from Totalitarian Sects accused the Moscow community, alleging that Jehovah’s Witnesses force their followers to make exorbitant contributions, incite hatred toward “traditional” religions, destroy families, and force believers to refuse blood transfusions, thus harming their health and endangering their lives. It has probably become clear to readers, from previous chapters of this book, that all of these accusations are groundless. For several years, the absence of evidence hindered prosecutors from investigating this criminal case and bringing it to trial.

The Committee to Save Youth from Totalitarian Sects filed its first application with the prosecutor’s office in 1995. The criminal case was started and dropped several times due to the absence of an actual crime or corpus delicti – that is, there was no evidence that a crime had been committed.

It was only after the Committee’s fifth application to the prosecutor’s office, and after influential anti-cultists joined them in their lobbying efforts, that on April 13, 1998, the investigator ordered the termination of the criminal case against the Moscow community of Jehovah’s Witnesses; but after finding violations of procedural law, he recommended that the prosecutor instead file a civil suit seeking the liquidation of the community.

On April 20, 1998, the prosecutor of Moscow’s Northern District filed a civil suit with the Golovinsky District Court to liquidate the Moscow community of Jehovah’s Witnesses and to ban its activity, basing his case on the following alleged grounds:

(a) inciting religious discord;

(b) forcing the breakup of families;

(c) promoting suicide and urging people in life- and health-threatening situations to refuse medical assistance for religious reasons;

(d) infringing on the rights and freedoms of citizens;

(e) involving teenagers and minor children in the activity of a religious organization.

A distinctive feature of the case in the Golovinsky District Court was that the Moscow community was prosecuted not because its members had done something illegal, but because of what they believed.

The Moscow community was prosecuted not because its members had done something illegal, but because of what they believed

As a result of two civil lawsuits which lasted a total of nearly six years (from September 1998 to March 2004), on March 26, 2004, the Golovinsky District Court of Moscow banned and liquidated the Moscow community of Jehovah’s Witnesses.

The first trial in the Golovinsky Court (from September 1998 to February 2001), ended in dismissal of the suit by the Prosecutor’s Office and victory for Jehovah’s Witnesses. Judge Ye. I. Prokhoricheva appointed a panel of five experts (in the fields of religious studies, literary criticism, linguistics, psychology, and ethnography) to conduct an additional expert examination of the liturgical literature and internal documents of the religious organization of Jehovah’s Witnesses. Four of the experts agreed with the position of the Prosecutor’s Office.¹ For example, M. M. Gromyko (1927-2020), an ethnographer with a PhD in history, concluded that the literature of Jehovah’s Witnesses “clearly shows hostility toward the Orthodox Church – the religion that historically has shaped the culture of our country.”²

I was the fifth member of the panel of experts. Unlike the other experts who never studied the religious organization of Jehovah’s Witnesses, I have studied the ideology and activity of that organization and have not seen anything unlawful in its beliefs or religious practices, so I wrote a dissenting opinion against the ban and liquidation of the Moscow community.³

On February 23, 2001, the Golovinsky court ruled that there were no grounds for liquidating and banning the activity of the Moscow community of Jehovah’s Witnesses since the prosecutor’s charges of inciting religious discord, destroying families, infringing on the private life and the rights and freedoms of citizens, and promoting suicide had not been proven. However, this decision was appealed by the Prosecutor’s Office to the Moscow City Court, which on May 30, 2001, overturned the decision of the Golovinsky court and sent the case back to the same court for a new trial with a new panel of judges.

The new trial in the Golovinsky court started on October 30, 2001, under presiding judge V. K. Dubinskaya. On March 26, 2004, the court ruled to ban the activity of the Moscow community of Jehovah’s Witnesses and to liquidate it. Jehovah’s Witnesses appealed the decision to the Moscow City Court; however, on June 16, 2004, the court dismissed the appeal and upheld the decision of the Golovinsky court.

Some of the leaders of the so-called traditional religions (Orthodox, Muslim, and Jewish) supported and approved the liquidation of the Moscow community of Jehovah’s Witnesses. Only representatives of the human rights community spoke out against it. Public opinion was indifferent to this event; a significant portion of the population sympathized with the “fight against sects.”

The anti-cultists recognized that their attempt to ban the organization of Jehovah’s Witnesses throughout Russia, starting with the liquidation of the Moscow community, had been unsuccessful.⁴

First, under the legislation in effect at the time, banning the Moscow community did not give law enforcement agencies the right to repress Jehovah’s Witnesses, who continued to practice their religion in Moscow.

Second, the court injunction used against the community of Jehovah’s Witnesses in the capital, which took a total of six years to judicate, did not become a “template” for use in other regions. The experiment in liquidating and banning the Moscow community turned out to be too protracted and “thorny.” The anti-cultists and their patrons in the upper echelons of power decided to “go a different route” by relying on anti-extremism legislation. I will discuss this in the next sections of this chapter.

The European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg (ECtHR) supported Jehovah’s Witnesses

Let us return to further developments concerning the legal status of the Moscow community of Jehovah’s Witnesses.

The European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg (ECtHR) supported Jehovah’s Witnesses. On June 10, 2010, it satisfied the complaint in the case Jehovah’s Witnesses of Moscow and Others v. Russia.⁵ The ECtHR ruling found that the decision of the Golovinsky Court to ban the activity of the Moscow community of Jehovah’s Witnesses violated Articles 6, 9, and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The ECtHR ordered Russia to pay Jehovah’s Witnesses 20,000 euros for non-pecuniary damages and 50,000 euros for court costs.

The ECtHR ordered Russia to pay Jehovah’s Witnesses 20,000 euros for non-pecuniary damages and 50,000 euros for court costs

In this ruling, the European Court concluded that the Russian courts had failed to provide evidence that the community of Jehovah’s Witnesses in Moscow had forced families to break up, violated the rights and freedoms of its members and third parties, incited its followers to commit suicide and refuse medical assistance, infringed on the rights of non-Witness parents and their children, and encouraged its members to refuse to fulfill their statutory duties.

The following is just one example that allows us to compare the lack of evidence in the decision of the Golovinsky court of the city of Moscow with the validity of the ECtHR conclusions.⁶ Regarding the charge of promoting suicide and refusing medical assistance, the Golovinsky court “concluded that the Moscow community of Jehovah’s Witnesses incited its members to commit suicide or urged those in life- and health-threatening situations to refuse medical assistance for religious reasons. In particular, members of the religious community, under the influence of the organization, refuse transfusions of blood and its components in all situations, even the most severe and life-threatening” [Paragraph 84].

The European Court of Human Rights found this conclusion of the Golovinsky court to be unsubstantiated, noting that “in so far as the domestic judgments can be understood to consider that the refusal of a blood transfusion is tantamount to suicide, in the Court’s view, this analogy does not hold, for the situation of a patient seeking a hastening of death through discontinuation of treatment is different from that of patients who – like Jehovah’s Witnesses – just make a choice of medical procedures but still wish to get well and do not refuse treatment altogether” [Paragraph 132].

The situation of a patient seeking a hastening of death through discontinuation of treatment is different from that of patients who just make a choice of medical procedures but still wish to get well and do not refuse treatment altogether

On September 9, 2010, the Russian Federation officially appealed the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights and requested that the case be transferred to the Grand Chamber of the European Court. In December 2010, it became known that the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights refused to grant Russia’s request to review the decision in the case. Thus, the ECtHR judgment declaring the liquidation of the Moscow community of Jehovah’s Witnesses illegal was reaffirmed.

In view of the ECtHR September 9, 2010 decision to deny the Russian application to review this case, on January 11, 2011, the Moscow community of Jehovah’s Witnesses petitioned the Russian Ministry of Justice to reregister the legal entity dissolved in 2004.

On February 15, 2011, the Golovinsky District Court of Moscow disregarded the ECtHR’s decision and refused to grant the January 11 petition of Jehovah’s Witnesses to review the March 26, 2004 decision to liquidate the community. Not until early June 2015, more than a decade after the ban, did it become known that the Community of Jehovah’s Witnesses in Moscow had been reregistered. Less than two years remained until April 20, 2017, when the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation would rule to ban all legal entities of Jehovah’s Witnesses in Russia.

Pacifists are declared extremists

Let us ask ourselves: How could Jehovah’s Witnesses, who are essentially pacifists, who do not kill anyone, do not discriminate against anyone, and do not incite violence, be declared extremists? After all, extremism (from the Latin “extremus,” meaning “extreme, excessive”) is commitment to extreme and radical views, and methods of action (usually in politics).⁷

Pacifists are declared extremists

Jehovah’s Witnesses do not participate in politics, nor do they hold extreme or radical views; their preaching methods are the most peaceful. They believe that of all the commandments, two are most important: “You must love Jehovah your God with your whole heart and with your whole soul and with your whole strength and with your whole mind” and your “neighbor as yourself” (Luke 10:27).⁸

In my opinion, those in the highest positions of authority in the state and the Russian Orthodox Church set a specific goal before the law enforcement agencies and courts: to find a way to ban the religious organization of Jehovah’s Witnesses.

In preparation for reaching this goal, some of the publications of Jehovah’s Witnesses were declared to be extremist material and a number of their local organizations were banned as extremist. The law enforcement agencies and judicial bodies started to implement these goals in 2009 (remember, this is the year when Metropolitan Kirill became Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia, and his lobbying opportunities increased significantly).

Religious literature of Jehovah’s Witnesses declared extremist

During 2009 and 2010, Jehovah’s Witnesses in Russia began to be subjected to illegal⁹ searches, detentions, and raids by law enforcement officers that were aimed at disrupting meetings for worship at Kingdom Halls. During searches and raids, publications of Jehovah’s Witnesses were seized and then became subjects of legal cases declaring these publications to be extremist materials. Between 2009 and 2012, courts in the Rostov Region, Altai Republic, Kemerovo Region, and Krasnodar Territory declared a total of 68 publications of Jehovah’s Witnesses extremist. From 2009 to 2016, various courts declared a total of 95 titles extremist.¹⁰

Were there any real grounds for declaring these publications extremist? Throughout this time, I continued my study of the religion of Jehovah’s Witnesses, regularly reading their publications. I read almost all the articles, brochures, and books that were later declared extremist by the courts, and I saw absolutely nothing extremist in them.

I had to read quite a few of the expert conclusions that the courts used as the basis for declaring the publications of Jehovah’s Witnesses to be extremist materials. As a religious studies scholar with many years of experience and a doctoral degree in Philosophical Sciences, earned for my study of the religious organization of Jehovah’s Witnesses, I can state that in most cases, what is involved are “made to order” expert studies that were conducted by experts who are not only devoid of the necessary qualifications but also devoid of conscience.

In most cases, what is involved are “made to order” expert studies that were conducted by experts who are not only devoid of the necessary qualifications but also devoid of conscience

I would like to highlight that some expert studies, including the very first ones in the Taganrog case, were performed by conscientious experts – religious studies scholars, linguists, and psychologists. However, the questions posed to the experts were deliberately unclear or cunningly worded, and judges misrepresented the conclusions of the conscientious experts and attributed to the expert studies conclusions they did not contain. I believe that the courts’ “twisted” interpretation of some of the expert studies conducted by conscientious experts is one indication that the negative decisions by these courts against Jehovah’s Witnesses were predetermined.

The 2010 Report of the Human Rights Commissioner in the Russian Federation contains a convincing example of the biased and “made to order” nature of some court decisions: “Working with complaints from religious organizations, the Commissioner has drawn attention to the fact that sometimes the experts appointed by the investigation found no evidence of extremism in their literature. In such rare cases, the investigation and the courts ‘take care of it’ themselves by declaring the religious literature extremist regardless of the expert conclusion. During the reporting year, the Commissioner monitored the case of the liquidation of the local religious organization of Jehovah’s Witnesses in Taganrog (Rostov Region). During the trial an expert conclusion dated July 15, 2009 by the Southern Regional Center for Forensic Expert Studies under the Ministry of Justice of the Russian Federation was presented to the court. The authors of the report – psychologists, philologists, and religious studies scholars – concluded that they could not find unequivocal signs of extremism in the religious literature of Jehovah’s Witnesses that they analyzed. Nevertheless, on September 11, 2009, the Rostov Regional Court ruled to declare the religious literature extremist and to liquidate the religious organization. After reading the case materials, the Commissioner petitioned the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, which had considered the supervisory appeal from the chairman of the governing committee of the Administrative Center for Jehovah’s Witnesses in Russia, and raised the issue of reversing this court decision. In the opinion of the Commissioner: 1) the arguments of the court of first instance regarding the extremist nature of the literature of the LRO (local religious organization) of Jehovah’s Witnesses in Taganrog were based solely on selective quotations from the expert conclusion, while the experts’ overall conclusions regarding the absence of extremist features in the literature were not taken into account; 2) religious literature published before 1999 had already been repeatedly examined by the authorized state authorities, and no signs of extremism were found in it.”¹¹

The main purpose of the “made to order” expert studies, which constituted the majority of the studies, was to fill the “order” of the investigation by substantiating the extremist nature of the publications of Jehovah’s Witnesses.

The only “argument” used by both the pseudo-experts and the courts was that Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that only their religion is true, and all others are false. From this the arbitrary and erroneous conclusion was drawn that the publications of Jehovah’s Witnesses incite religious discord and promote exclusivity, superiority, or inferiority of a person on the basis of his attitude toward religion by claiming – without attacking other denominations – that the religion of Jehovah’s Witnesses is the only true one.¹²

There are many far-fetched examples of pseudo-experts and courts arbitrarily declaring extremist this or that statement from the literature of Jehovah’s Witnesses.

The main purpose of the “made to order” expert studies, which constituted the majority of the studies, was to fill the “order” of the investigation by substantiating the extremist nature of the publications of Jehovah’s Witnesses

Here is one such example. The Watchtower of February 1, 2009, states: “Whatever the case, although Josiah was only a child, he was old enough to know that he should make friends with people who serve Jehovah. May you do the same and choose to do what is right!”¹³ The Conclusion of the Judicial-Expert Commission on the Results of the Judicial Comprehensive Psychological-Linguistic Religious Expert Study of May 4, 2009, page 43 (experts L. A. Arayeva, M. S. Yanitsky, M. A. Osadchy, Kemerovo State University), draws a profound conclusion: “By saying one ‘should make friends with people who serve Jehovah,’ the text implies that ‘one should not be friends with others.’ This is the hidden promotion of discord based on religious affiliation. …This promotes a negative attitude towards people who do not share a belief in Jehovah.” As a result, on October 1, 2009, the Gorno-Altaysk City Court of the Altay Republic ruled to add this publication to the List of Extremist Materials.¹⁴

Actually, it is well known, including to those who lobbied, prepared, and ruled to ban certain publications of Jehovah’s Witnesses, that the vast majority of religious organizations consider only their own teachings to be absolutely true and all others to be false. Obviously, if there is a political or ideological demand, any religious organization can be considered extremist on the “grounds” that it asserts the superiority of its religious teachings over others.

If there is a political or ideological demand, any religious organization can be considered extremist on the “grounds” that it asserts the superiority of its religious teachings over others

Is it a manifestation of religious extremism for followers of a particular religion to believe that only their religion is true and that all other religions are false? Let us dig deeper, so to speak, and see how the Russian Orthodox Church views this question.

The claim of the Russian Orthodox Church to fullness of truth and the right to declare other religions false

The Russian Orthodox Church holds firmly to the view that only the Orthodox Church is the true Church. Thus, the authoritative catechism¹⁵ compiled by Metropolitan Philaret (Drozdov),¹⁶ states that “the Church is the God-ordained society of people united by the Orthodox faith, the law of God, the priesthood, and the sacraments” (response №250). The Orthodox Church includes all true believers in the world. And in order to save one’s soul, one must be a member of the Orthodox Church. The catechism explicitly states that all true believers in the world belong to the Orthodox Church and only they can be saved.¹⁷ All who receive eternal salvation receive it only in the Orthodox Church (response №270).

All unbelievers and “lawless men” will be “consigned to eternal death; in other words, to eternal fire and eternal torment together with the demons.”¹⁸

The Russian Orthodox Church holds firmly to the view that only the Orthodox Church is the true Church

The idea that only the Orthodox Church possesses the fullness of truth is universally accepted in its theology. One of the authors who give primary attention to this theme is the honorary theologian Alexey Ilyich Osipov (born in 1938), professor emeritus at the Moscow Theological Academy. In his works A. I. Osipov argues that other denominations of Christianity (Catholicism, Protestantism) are deceptions and serious distortions of all matters of faith and life.¹⁹

The theology of the Russian Orthodox Church presents a radical assessment of “sects” (including Catholicism and Protestantism). Harsh negative evaluations of all non-Orthodox confessions can be found in the “Orthodox anti-sectarian catechism,” which states that all other religions are false and created by the devil and human pride, and “those who follow these demonic fabrications are called either heretics or sectarians.”²⁰ The author considers Catholicism, Protestantism, and the teachings of Leo Tolstoy to be sects, calling sectarians “imitators of the devil.”²¹

“Sects” are also categorically condemned in the work of Archpriest Mitrophan Znosko-Borovsky (born in 1909), Orthodoxy. Roman Catholicism. Protestantism. Sectarianism. A Comparative Theology (Moscow, 1998, [only in Russian]). The author believes that “the appearance in Russia of each new sect and its activities, controlled from abroad, represented a serious disease, undermining the foundations not only of the religious and governmental but also the social, economic and cultural life of the Russian people.” According to Archpriest Mitrophan, the authorities of the Russian Empire showed inexcusable complacency toward sectarians: “Despite understanding the harm caused by Western freethinking and sectarianism, the Russian government showed inexcusable complacency and tolerance toward those sowing the seeds of this poison. And there has often been inconsistency in the measures taken against the planting of sectarianism in Russia.”

In his book, Archpriest Mitrophan Znosko-Borovsky portrays Jehovah’s Witnesses in a negative light. He asserts: “The political agenda of Jehovah’s Witnesses does not differ from that of the followers of Karl Marx; the only difference is that Karl Marx felt impelled to conceal the anti-Christian purpose of his teaching, while Jehovah’s Witnesses openly speak of their hatred specifically for Christianity, openly and brazenly gloating in anticipation of its imminent destruction.”²²

A comprehensive theological analysis of the attitude of the Russian Orthodox Church toward “sects” can be found in the work of Roman Mikhailovich Kon,Doctor of Theology and teacher at the Moscow Theological Academy and a number of seminaries.²³ The author proceeds from a patristic concept, according to which every sect is based on some sort of heretical teaching.

In Orthodox literature published with the blessing of the Orthodox clergy, one can find harsh references – some even verging on verbal abuse – to “sects,” “sectarians,” and heretics. For example, one book describes sectarianism as “a clear threat to public mental health.”²⁴ Another describes a horrifying picture that demonizes “sectarians:” “a crowd of people being chased by terrifying demons who are mercilessly beating and stabbing them with long pikes, pitchforks, and hooks… There are godless men, sorcerers, fornicators, drunkards, money lovers, heretics, apostates, sectarians, and others. They look dreadful, horrible: their faces are black, foam and stench are coming from their mouths, and they scream terribly, but the demons beat them mercilessly and drive them into а deep abyss. From there come foul smells, smoke, fire, and stench.”²⁵

In Orthodox literature published with the blessing of the Orthodox clergy, one can find harsh references – some even verging on verbal abuse – to “sects,” “sectarians,” and heretics

Some Orthodox preachers are known for their desire to dehumanize “sectarians,” to deny their right to freedom of conscience and to justify violence against them. Archpriest Dmitry Smirnov,²⁶ for example, called for “crushing sects” and throwing “bricks through the windows of sectarians.”²⁷

These examples show that the Russian Orthodox Church considers only its own teachings to be true.

Proclaiming one’s own religion to be the only true one and all others to be false is not in itself tantamount to religious extremism and incitement to religious discord

However, proclaiming one’s own religion to be the only true one and all others to be false is not in itself tantamount to religious extremism and incitement to religious discord, especially when pertinent publications and sermons emphasize that followers of false religions (or unbelievers) should be treated with love, as those who have gone astray. For example, an Orthodox textbook on church law notes that there is no other way to salvation than through faith in Christ, but that “Christians should have a loving attitude toward all people, including those who remain deaf to the Gospel. A spirit of human kindness must reign in a Christian’s personal relationships with those of other faiths…”²⁸

And what about Jehovah’s Witnesses? Jehovah’s Witnesses are a religious minority in all the countries where they are found. Any attempt to impose their own religious supremacy or to incite religious discord would be suicidal for this religious organization.

When preaching, Jehovah’s Witnesses apply Bible principles that require them to avoid unnecessary disputes, “knowing that they produce fights,” and “to be gentle toward all, qualified to teach, showing restraint when wronged, instructing with mildness those not favorably disposed. Perhaps God may give them repentance leading to an accurate knowledge of truth, and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the Devil, seeing that they have been caught alive by him to do his will.”²⁹

The Bible repeatedly calls Satan a liar and the “father of the lie” (John 8:44). From the point of view of Christians who trust the authority of the Bible, the main source of lies and deception in religious matters is the Devil. But Jehovah’s Witnesses firmly believe that this does not mean that Christians should hate those who have fallen victim to deceptions. On the contrary, a Christian’s obligation is to try as actively and tactfully as possible to change the minds of those who have been misled, to help them free themselves “from the snare of the Devil” (Romans 12:1, 2). So, Jehovah’s Witnesses, who consider theirs to be the only true religion, naturally avoid any hint of inciting religious discord by “instructing with mildness” those who are misled. Abundant proof of this is found in the interviews with Jehovah’s Witnesses in the last chapter of this book.

Jehovah’s Witnesses, who consider theirs to be the only true religion, naturally avoid any hint of inciting religious discord

I have had the opportunity to observe how Jehovah’s Witnesses in various countries conduct their preaching activities. They are usually tactful and careful to avoid any confrontation, much less inciting religious discord.

Jehovah’s Witnesses are critical of those aspects of the doctrine and practices of other religions that they consider incompatible with the Bible. Jehovah’s Witnesses combine the theological polemic common to all religions with recognition of everyone’s right to freedom of conscience; therefore, this cannot be regarded as promoting religious superiority or inciting religious discord.

In the publications of Jehovah’s Witnesses and in classes dedicated to improving preaching skills, considerable attention is given to teaching believers to respect the principle of freedom of conscience and the feelings of members of other religious organizations.

Considerable attention is given to teaching believers to respect the principle of freedom of conscience and the feelings of members of other religious organizations

In the Theocratic Ministry School Guidebook (1992), which serves as a study guide for Jehovah’s Witnesses to improve their skills in the preaching ministry, there is a special chapter entitled “Tactful Yet Firm” (pp.69-73). It advises the preacher to be tactful with those who have different beliefs: “Appeal to the person’s love of righteousness, to his reason and to his desire for better things. Ridicule or condemnation of his religious views will only close his mind. So, instead of talking on matters that stir up controversy, appeal to the things people generally accept as right. If it is necessary to pass on to something more controversial, first find some point of agreement with the householder and stress that agreement… So, while we may not agree with the one with whom we are talking, we do not immediately have to point out every mistaken idea” (pp.70-71). Clearly, it would be difficult to suspect a preacher who follows this advice of advocating religious superiority or inciting interreligious discord.

Tactfulness toward those who hold different religious views is linked with recognizing each person’s right to freedom of choice of religion and freedom of conscience

It should be noted that tactfulness toward those who hold different religious views is linked with recognizing each person’s right to freedom of choice of religion and freedom of conscience. For example, the main periodical of Jehovah’s Witnesses, The Watchtower, in its February 1, 1997 issue, emphasizes the importance of freedom of religion for any state that cares for its subjects (p.3). The main theme of the November 22, 1998 issue of Awake! is human rights, including the right to freedom of conscience.

In the publications of Jehovah’s Witnesses, no confirmation can be found to support the anti-cultists’ thesis that Jehovah’s Witnesses are hostile to all other religions and their clergy. In fact, many Jehovah’s Witnesses remember that in the past, they themselves were members of a wide variety of religious organizations. They often have relatives, friends, neighbors, and co-workers who hold other religious views. The Witnesses feel no hatred or hostility toward them; they consider it their duty to preach about their own beliefs. In reality, it is Jehovah’s Witnesses who are attacked by other, much larger religious organizations.

Jehovah’s Witnesses love to discuss matters of faith with people of all religions, but do not participate in interfaith worship services. They would never think of harboring any hostile plans against other religious organizations. Jehovah’s Witnesses firmly believe that, not they, but God himself, will pass judgment on religions that are false in his eyes. In this they are guided by the Biblical advice: “Stop judging that you may not be judged” (Matthew 7:1).

Thus, we may conclude that Jehovah’s Witnesses have no hatred for members of other religions, and their criticism of the tenets other religions that are not in harmony with Bible principles has nothing to do with promoting religious superiority or inciting interreligious hatred.

Jehovah’s Witnesses have no hatred for members of other religions, and their criticism of the tenets of other religions that are not in harmony with Bible principles has nothing to do with promoting religious superiority or inciting interreligious hatred

Some legally registered local religious organizations of Jehovah’s Witnesses are declared extremist

While carefully studying the activity of Jehovah’s Witnesses, I observed their high degree of discipline and responsibility. These qualities are displayed in a wide variety of situations. For example, after certain publications of Jehovah’s Witnesses were declared to be extremist materials and their distribution was banned, the Administrative Center of Jehovah’s Witnesses informed the congregations of these facts and recommended that these publications not be used in their preaching work and under no circumstances should they be stored at Kingdom Halls.

It can be stated with certainty that after a publication was declared extremist, it never has been or could have been found at any Kingdom Hall. But law enforcement officers coming to conduct a search at a Kingdom Hall have brought with them publications of Jehovah’s Witnesses that had been declared extremist, and have concealed them in some “hiding place” and then “discovered” them during the search. Then, protocols were drawn up and cases filed against local communities of Jehovah’s Witnesses “for carrying out extremist activity.”

As a rule, Kingdom Halls were equipped with surveillance cameras, and most believers had smartphones or tablets with video cameras. Jehovah’s Witnesses amassed an extensive library of video recordings showing extremist literature being planted in their Kingdom Halls.

Courts considering cases to declare local organizations of Jehovah’s Witnesses extremist have behaved in various ways. In most instances, judges refused to attach to the case materials video recordings of law enforcement officers planting extremist literature in Kingdom Halls. They said that there were no grounds for doubting the law enforcement officers, and ruled to ban local communities of Jehovah’s Witnesses. That is how eight local organizations of Jehovah’s Witnesses were declared extremist and liquidated (even before the April 20, 2017, decision of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation).

There were exceptions to this rule. For example, in 2016, the Arkhangelsk Regional Court considered an administrative claim to declare the Tsentralnaya Arkhangelsk local religious organization of Jehovah’s Witnesses extremist and to liquidate it, but on June 3, 2016, the court refused to satisfy this claim.

In this case, Arkhangelsk resident Yevgeniy Viktorovich Yakku made a video recording on his phone showing that law enforcement officers planted extremist literature in the Kingdom Hall, and the judge granted the defense motion to view this video recording and attach it to the case materials. As a result of this judge’s principled and legally based position, the claim of the Prosecutor’s Office was dismissed, and the Tsentralnaya Arkhangelsk local religious organization of Jehovah’s Witnesses was not declared extremist.

However, this came at a cost to Yevgeniy Yakku himself. In 2016, law enforcement officials threatened him with “retaliation.” In 2019, Yevgeniy Yakku’s home was searched. The investigation lasted about a year, then the court hearings began. The prosecutor asked for a sentence of 7.5 years in a penal colony. In July 2021 the court found Yevgeniy guilty and ordered him to pay 850,000 rubles [more than 9,000 USD]. In October 2021 the court of appeal upheld the sentence.

Exceptions only prove rules. As a result of the targeted activity of law enforcement agencies and courts, contrary to the law and to common sense, 95 publications and eight local religious organizations of Jehovah’s Witnesses were declared extremist. And this was enough for the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation to rule to liquidate the Administrative Center of Jehovah’s Witnesses in Russia and 395 legally registered religious communities of Jehovah’s Witnesses on April 20, 2017, banning their activity as that of extremist organizations. The decision of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation does not contain any facts of extremist activity on the part of the Administrative Center of Jehovah’s Witnesses in Russia.

The decision of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation does not contain any facts of extremist activity on the part of the Administrative Center of Jehovah’s Witnesses in Russia

Since that time, a wave of criminal prosecutions has been brought against Jehovah’s Witnesses. They are accused of organizing the activity of extremist organizations, although in reality they are simply continuing to worship God by participating in Christian meetings.

1
See: V. P. Belyanin, M. M. Gromyko, D. A. Leontiev, S. A. Nebolsin, Comprehensive expert opinion on civil case 2-452/99, Golovinsky Intermunicipal District Court, NAD of Moscow (October 4, 2000). [only in Russian] ↩︎
2
“Golovinsky Court Acquits Jehovah’s Witnesses,” Kommersant 02/26/2001. [only in Russian] ↩︎
3
S.I. Ivanenko, Expert’s opinion on civil case 2-452/99 based on application by the Prosecutor of the Northern Administrative District of Moscow “On the liquidation of the religious organization of Jehovah’s Witnesses and the banning of its activity,” (Golovinsky Intermunicipal Court of the NAD of Moscow, November 14, 2000). [only in Russian] ↩︎
4
I heard this “with my own ears” when I was speaking informally with supporters of “anti-sectarian” views from among deputies of the State Duma, members of the Federation Council and their assistants, and other government officials. ↩︎
5
Ten Years Ago, ECtHR Ruled in Jehovah’s Witnesses in Moscow v. Russia. What Is Happening to Believers Now? (https://jw-russia.org/en/news/2020/06/12.html). ↩︎
6
A comparison of the conclusions of the Golovinsky District Court of Moscow and the ECtHR is contained in the material “Appendix. Extracts from the judgments of the Golovinsky District Court of Moscow and the European Court (comparative table)” (https://jw-russia.org/docs/1/ref20110622_u.pdf [only in Russian]). Full text of the ECtHR Ruling in English: https://jw-russia.org/en/docs/23.html. ↩︎
7
Russian Encyclopedic Dictionary, Chief Editor A. M. Prokhorov, Great Russian Encyclopedia Scientific Publishers, Moscow, 2000, Vol. 2, p.1832. [only in Russian] ↩︎
8
Jesus Christ’s words describing these two commandments – to love God and to love one’s neighbor as oneself – as the greatest can also be found at Matthew 22:37-40 and Mark 12:29-31. ↩︎
9
On February 22, 2022, the European Court of Human Rights ruled in the case of Cheprunovy and Others v. Russia, which combined five complaints of Russian Jehovah’s Witnesses. The applicants – several believers from different regions of Russia and the local religious organization of Jehovah’s Witnesses in Kostomuksha – challenged the legality of searches carried out against them between 2010 and 2012. The ECtHR concluded that these searches “were not necessary in a democratic society,” and that the applicants’ rights under Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights (right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion) had been violated. ↩︎
10
Twenty-four issues of The Watchtower, 13 issues of Awake!, 24 books, and 49 brochures were added to the Federal List of Extremist Materials. Some publications were added to the list twice by different courts independently, several publications were removed from it after appeals were filed. ↩︎
11
Report of the Human Rights Ombudsman in the Russian Federation for 2010, Rossiyskaya Gazeta. May 13, 2011 (https://rg.ru/2011/05/13/doklad-lukin-dok.html [only in Russian]). ↩︎
12
Federal Law № 114-FZ of 25 July 2002 on Counteracting Extremist Activity contains a list of various types of extremist activity, which includes “inciting social, racial, national or religious discord; propaganda of exclusivity, superiority or inferiority of a person on the basis of his social, racial, national, religious or linguistic affiliation or attitude to religion” (Article 1, paragraph 1). ↩︎
13
Josiah Chose to Do What Was Right, The Watchtower, February 1, 2009, p.25. ↩︎
14
Many facts illustrating the activities of pseudo-experts are collected and analyzed in the article “Expert Assessment of Religious Texts, Statements and Illustrations on Inciting Discord” by I. V. Belenko (Freedom of conscience in Russia: historical and modern aspects, 9^th Edition) (http://roman142.blogspot.com/2014/03/blog-post_26.html, https://jw-russia.org/news/2015/09/37.html [both only in Russian]). ↩︎
15
Catechism is the official confessional document of a denomination. In most cases, a catechism contains the main tenets of religious doctrine in the form of questions and answers. ↩︎
16
Metropolitan Philaret (secular name Vassily Mikhailovich Drozdov; 1782-1867) was beatified as a saint by the Russian Orthodox Church in 1994. The relics of Metropolitan Philaret are in the Cathedral of Christ the Savior in Moscow. The Longer Catechism of the Orthodox Catholic Eastern Church, considered and approved by the Holy Synod and published for teaching in colleges and for use by all Orthodox Christians was prepared in 1822-1823 by Philaret (Drozdov) and first published in 1823. Subsequently it was republished many times, including in foreign languages. This catechism is the official catechism of the Russian Orthodox Church. ↩︎
17
The Longer Catechism of the Orthodox Catholic Eastern Church, Moscow, The Publishing house of Moscow Patriarchy, 1997, pp.66, 88, 89, 118-119. ↩︎
18
Longer Catechism, p.89. ↩︎
19
See, for example, A. I. Osipov, Orthodoxy: An Abridged Manual on Apologetics for the Graduate Seminary (Baccalaureate) Course of the Moscow Theological Academy, Section 10. The Truth of Christianity; § 2. The Truth of Orthodoxy, Official website of Osipov, Alexey Ilyich: https://alexey-osipov.ru/books-and-publications/knigi/aio-apologetika. [only in Russian] ↩︎
20
N. Varzhansky, The Good Confession. Orthodox anti-sectarian catechism, Moscow, Metochion of the Trinity Lavra of St. Sergius, 1998, p.9. [only in Russian] ↩︎
21
N. Varzhansky, The Good Confession, pp.32, 46, 70. ↩︎
22
Archpriest Mitrophan Znosko-Borovsky, Orthodoxy. Roman Catholicism. Protestantism. Sectarianism. A Comparative Theology, Moscow, Metochion of the Trinity Lavra of St. Sergius, 1998, pp.219-220. ↩︎
23
See: R. M. Kon, Introduction to Sectology, Nizhny Novgorod, Nizhny Novgorod Theological Seminary, 2008, 496 pages. [only in Russian] ↩︎
24
I. V. Siluyanova, Man and Disease, Moscow, Metochion of the Trinity Lavra of St. Sergius, 1998, p.89. [only in Russian] ↩︎
25
Russia Before the Second Coming, Moscow, Trinity Lavra of St. Sergius, 1998, p.174. [only in Russian] ↩︎
26
Dimitriy Smirnov (1951-2020) – clergyman of the Russian Orthodox Church, church, and public figure. Chairman of the Synodal Department of the Moscow Patriarchate for Cooperation with the Armed Forces and Law Enforcement Agencies (2001-2013), chairman (2011-2020) and honorary chairman (until October 21, 2020) of the Patriarchal Commission on the Family and the Protection of Motherhood and Childhood. Since the early 1990s, he has spoken extensively in the mass media on various issues. He is known for a number of statements causing public outcry. ↩︎
27
See: “Archpriest Dimitriy Smirnov answers journalist Vladimir Pozner’s questions,” Multi-Media Blog of Archpriest Dimitriy Smirnov (http://www.dimitrysmirnov.ru/blog/cerkov-9902/?head_display=0 [only in Russian]); Archpriest Dimitriy Smirnov: “Gather the People, Destroy the Rotten Sects!” September 21, 2014, Religion and Law online publication. (http://www.sclj.ru/news/detail.php?SECTION_ID=341&ELEMENT_ID=4382 [only in Russian]). ↩︎
28
Archpriest Vladislav Tsypin, Church Law, a textbook, Moscow, Round Table on Religious Education in the Russian Orthodox Church, 1996, p.413. [only in Russian] ↩︎
29
2 Timothy 2:23-26. ↩︎