RUSSIA RELIGION NEWS

Monitoring news media reports about religion in Russia and other countries of CIS
Copyrighted material. For private use only.
If you quote material, please credit the publication from which it came. It is not necessary to credit this Web page for any print use of the material. If any electronic reproduction is made, please acknowledge the URL: http:www.stetson.edu/~psteeves/relnews/
	Archive of News Items	Abbreviations	Links to Useful Information

Russia Religion News Current News Items

Decision of Golovin court regarding Jehovah's Witnesses

DECISION OF THE GOLOVIN DISTRICT COURT OF THE NORTHERN ADMINISTATIVE DISTRICT OF MOSCOW OF 26 MARCH 2004

In the name of the Russian federation, the Golovin district court of the Northern Administrative District of the city of Moscow, comprising Presiding Federal Judge V.K. Dubinskaia, with the participation of Prosecutor T.I. Kondratieva and attorneys G.A. Krylova, A.E. Leontiev, and D.M. Burns, and secretary A.S. Shtek. Having reviewed in open judicial session the civil case No. 2-67, the prosecutor of the Northern Administrative District of the city of Moscow addressed the court with a representation concerning the liquidation and prohibition of the activity of the "Religious society of Jehovah's Witnesses of the city of Moscow."

As the basis of the representation the prosecutor cited the fact that the literature and publications distributed by the Moscow society contain evidence of incitement of religious strife, that is, actions directed to the commission of extremist activity; the prescribed requirements in the organization that are obligatory for fulfillment by its members tend towards the destruction of the family and infringe on the personality, rights, and freedoms of citizens, promote suicide or refusal of medical aid on the basis of religious motives, and encourage citizens to refuse to fulfill civic obligations established by law; and they entice children and minors into the activity of the organization. The society functioning in the city of Moscow has committed frequent and crude violations of the norms of the constitution and federal laws of the Russian federation, and has carried out activity in contradiction with the goal of its creation (charter goals). As specific manifestations and instances of violations of the law on the part of the society, the prosecutor pointed to incidents of the severing of familial relations, infringement of the rights of children, refusals of blood transfusions on the basis of religious motives, negative influence of participation in the organization on the psychological health of individual citizens, infringement of the right of privacy as a result of inappropriate proselytism, violation of the right of compensation for labor and free labor by persons summoned to service in Vefila, and propaganda of refusal of performance of regular military service and of performance of alternative service and of refusal to respect the flag and national anthem.

A representative of the Chief Directorate of the Ministry of Justice for the city of Moscow, whose competence includes the registration of religious associations, supported the requests stated by the prosecutor, citing the bases for liquidation to which the declarer appealed: incitement of religious strife, inducing the break up of families, infringement on the personality, rights and freedom of citizens, prompting suicide or refusal of medical aid for persons in critical condition on religious motives, and encouragement of citizens to refuse to fulfill civic obligations established by law.

Representatives of the religious society did not acknowledge the request and affirmed that the prosecutor must prove the presence of real circumstances to which he referred and that he incorrectly interpreted the norms of material law. Refusal of compensation for labor, refusal of blood transfusions and such actions were connected with the voluntary choice of citizens themselves. The law does not establish unconditional obligations which Jehovah's Witnesses refuse to fulfill. Participation by children in preaching services has been done with the consent of parents. The requests of the prosecutor presuppose a baseless interference of the state in the right of citizens to freedom of religious confession, since this interference is not based on the law, does not pursue legitimate goals, and is not necessary in a democratic society.

The court, having listened to the sides and testimony of witnesses and having reviewed materials of the criminal case, and having reviewed the testimony of witnesses and having studied the materials of the civil case, finds that the request is subject to satisfaction.

According to article 9 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Basic Freedoms, which was ratified by the federal law of the Russian federation no. 54 of 30 march 1998, every person has the right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion; this right includes the freedom to changes one's religion or convictions, and the freedom to profess one's religion or convictions both individually and in common with others, in public or private worship, study, and performance of religious and worship rituals. Freedom to confess one's religion or convictions is subject only to such limitations as are provided by law and necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public security, maintenance of public order, health, or morality or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of other persons. In accordance with article 14 of the law of the Russian federation "On freedom of conscience and religious associations" in the edition of federal laws of 26 March 2000, 21 March 2002, 25 July 2002, and 8 December 2003, religious organizations may be liquidated by court decision in the event of frequent or gross violations of the norms of the constitution of the Russian federation and existing federal law and other federal laws or in the event of systematic conduct by the religious organizations of activity in contradiction with the goals of its creation (charter purposes). Bases for liquidation of a religious organization and prohibition of the activity of a religious organization or religious group by judicial procedure include actions directed to performance of extremist activity, encouragement of the breakup of the family; infringement o the personality, rights, and freedoms of citizens; encouragement of suicide or refusal of medical care for persons in conditions of danger to life and health, for religious motives; encouragement of members and adherents of a religious association and other persons toward alienation of property belonging to them for the benefit of the religious association; encouragement of citizens to refuse to fulfill civic obligations established by law and the commission of other illegal actions.

On the basis of article 55 of the constitution of the Russian federation, the rights and freedoms of a person and citizen may be limited by federal law only to the extent that is necessary for the purpose of protecting the bases of the constitutional order, morality, health, rights, and legal interests of other persons, and maintaining the defense of the country and the security of the state.

It was established in judicial sessions and follows from the materials of the case that the religious society of Jehovah's Witnesses of the city of Moscow was registered by the Directorate of Justice for the city of Moscow on 30 December 1993 and in accordance with the documents submitted for registration is a voluntary association of believers formed for the purposes of joint confession and propagation of the faith of Jehovah's Witnesses, and from the time of registration of the adoption of the order in the agencies of the justice ministry the society enjoyed the rights of legal entity. In canonical and administrative matters the society is completely subordinate to the Regional Administrative Center located in the city of St. Petersburg and the Supervisory Corporation of the World Religious Organization of Jehovah's Witnesses, which is located in the city of Brooklyn of the United States of America. In accordance with point 2.1, the goal of the society is joint confession and dissemination of the faith and the conduct of religious activity exalting the name of Jehovah God. This goal is fulfilled by means of Christian ministry based on the Bible, which includes conducting worship services and rituals, public preaching of the Good News from house to house, study of the truths of the Bible by people who wish to hear, free encouragement of Jehovah's Witnesses in biblical truths, construction of Kingdom Halls, performance of publishing activity in accordance with established procedure, and the preparation, acquisition, export, import, and distribution of Bibles, other religious literature and publications, and audio and video tapes of religious contents. The members of the society are adult-aged believers who became Jehovah's Witnesses through their own voluntary commitment to God and subsequent water baptism.

The court established that the charter documents on the basis of which the activity of the organization , i.e. the Moscow society, was permitted, and its internal rules contain substantive inconsistencies that served as the cause of serious negative consequences, led to violation of federal laws of Russia, the constitution of the Russian federation, the Family Code of RF, Labor Code of RF, and the bases of legislation of the Russian federation regarding protection of the health of citizens and led to the breakup of families and infringement of the rights of minors and personal rights and freedoms of other citizens.

Beginning in 1995 the Moscow Committee for the Salvation of Youth, created on the wave of growing displeasure with the activity of new, nontraditional religious movements, including the defendant organization, frequently turned to offices of the prosecutor requesting a review of the question of the illegal actions of the society of Jehovah's Witnesses in connection with their receipt of numerous appeals for help from citizens whose relatives were members of the Moscow society. The representation from the committee indicated that Jehovah's Witnesses are a powerful totalitarian sect of worldwide significance which is engaged in drawing into the sect underaged children and employment of elements of psychological conditioning that substantially worsens the material condition of families of its members by means of a harsh system of collection of payments for the organization; it incites hatred for traditional religions and the religious directions of the Russian Orthodox church, which leads to the destruction of national traditions within the minds of the young generation; it has increased the number of ruptures in familial ties; it encourages the refusal to fulfill civic obligations and of blood transfusions; it incites religious and ethnic hostility; it preaches the idea of the absolute superiority of some people over others; it engenders fear and psychic anxiety in expectation of the "end of the world" (criminal case, vol. 3, p. 335). On 13 April 1998 the criminal case was closed because of the absence of evidence of the commission of crimes and the representation was made to the prosecutor of the Northern Administrative District of Moscow, on the basis of which the prosecutor's office entered the representation for the liquidation of the society. Incidents of conflicts that arose within families in connection with the activity of the religious society in the city of Moscow were confirmed by testimonies of witnesses examined by the court.

Witness M.V. Gerasimov testified that he is a member of the Moscow regional Committee for the Salvation of Youth. Tens and hundreds of appeals have reached him with regard to the organization of Jehovah's Witnesses. People asked for help in resolving family conflicts. In 100 percent of the cases tension arose in a family if all were not members of a single religious organization. It is impossible for all people whose families have suffered to participate in the trial because not all by any means would agree to tell stories about their problems; these are family relations and people maintain the hope of restoring them.

Witness R.A. Zemlianskaia testified that she lived in a marriage with her husband for 28 years. In 1993 her husband joined the organization. After this their relations gradually and substantially worsened. At the present time there is practically no family. At first the husband refused to donate blood for her for conducting a planned operation, appealing to religious notions. After this he began observing other prohibitions established by the organization; he ceased observing her birthday and holidays, he ceased showing signs of attention to which she was accustomed; in the postoperation period he refused to help around the house because of his occupation in the religious organization. On her request he accompanied her father to the department of social security, although instead of helping the old and sick man he left him alone and occupied himself with meetings, and he himself preached to the old man and when the father-in-law expressed disagreement with the preaching he refused to help him whatsoever. In the summer he and her father went to a village in Voronezh province where, instead of helping in the house, he engaged in preaching around nearby settlements. Attempts to preach at home to his own family met resistance from both daughter and father and aroused complaints and conflicts. In 1997 her father became much worse and she asked her husband to come immediately to help; he refused and arrived ten days before the death of this man because he was attending a congress of the religious organization. The husband refused to attend the wedding of their only daughter, appealing to the fact that there would be drinking of alcohol. She observed these changes in her nearest relative after he joined that organization and she felt that he had distanced himself from friends and family. He has practically nothing but the organization, and he does not resolve problems of the family and engages only in affairs of the organization to the detriment of his own health and at the expense of his personal time and family.

Witness A.A. Zhavoronkova testified that her only son Valera became a member of the organization at the age of 21. At the time when he was studying in the conservatory he became acquainted with a girl who was a member of this religious organization . She and her mother had joined the organization. When the witness and her mother, the grandmother of Valera, discovered Jehovah's Witness literature they began to raise questions with him. Valera called up the family of his girlfriend and on their recommendation he packed up and left the home, taking all the literature. Before joining the organization he had been a sociable, lively, normal boy who was interested in many people. After joining the organization he became moody and socialized only with his future relatives. Such a situation has continued to the present. Her son had been given an ultimatum: either he joins the organization or he must forget about the girl he had come to love. In the same year, 1997, Valera's grandmother became seriously ill. While he had loved his grandmother before this, he refused to visit her during her illness, despite all requests and entreaties. He learned of her death by accident when he asked about whether he could live in the grandmother's apartment, a year after her funeral. In September 1998 a baby arrived in the son's family, but the witness was able to see her grandson only three years later at the time when this trial was in progress. The conflict with the son occurred after he joined this religious organization. Before this he had good and warm relations in the family. After 6-7 October 1997, the day he departed from the family, she saw her son only a few times, including the day of his wedding. The son comes home only when necessary to ask for money or material aid, and he refuses to leave information about his telephone or place of residence.

Witness D.V. Moskalev testified that he first became acquainted with Jehovah's Witnesses in 1992 at the age of 16. In 1993 he became an unbaptized probationer and in 1994 he was baptized. His joining the organization gradually created problems and difficulties in his relations with his parents. The organization does not publish anything about how it would interfere with the authority of parents. However if one needs to choose between some matter connected with a meeting and helping one's parents, the member of the organization must prefer the meeting. They live in a separate home. When the father needed help the son refused him because it was necessary to go to a meeting. He went off even when emergency aid was needed and he was forced to refuse to go to a memorial for his grandfather because he preferred to go to a meeting. The organization considers God's business to be more important than relations with parents. In violation of the prohibition of the organization, he participated in a birthday celebration of his own grandfather and for this he subsequently was punished by the Legal Committee of the religious society.

Witness A.I. Kuznetsov testified that he married his wife in 1976 and until 1994 they lived together normally and happily. In that year, while he was away on a business trip, his wife joined the Jehovah's Witnesses organization and got her children involved in it. The older son was then eleven and the younger, three. He objected to the involvement of the children and his wife disagreed with him and categorically refused to get out of the organization herself and to exclude the children from it. After this he began divorce proceedings and raised the question of giving the children to him and depriving her of her parental rights. He was not able to overcome the family relations with his wife and she, in his opinion, had left her normal, human cycle of communication; it had become impossible to talk about anything with her. Everything that happened she associated with her new world view. The wife behaved improperly in relations with her children. She took them to meetings; she thought that the most important thing was "to cleanse" the children's souls. She gave last place to their education since the school will not give anything good. The wife absented herself from the home; she took a lot of literature and left. All domestic matters lay on his shoulders. He did not have his wife with him and she did not participate in raising the children. The reason for the breakup of his family he thinks to be that his wife joined the Jehovah's Witnesses organization and fulfilled all of their orders. It had become impossible to discuss anything with her. He could not even watch television with her because of her commentaries about everything, including the leadership of the country and the Orthodox church.

Witness N.G. Vishneva testified that her daughter-in-law joined the Jehovah's Witnesses organization in approximately 1991-1992. Before that her relations with her daughter-in-law had been very warm. After she joined the organization changes began to take place in his person. She ceased consulting with anybody in the family and began to make independent decisions which she had not checked with others. To all questions she asked for time to think them over and to leave her alone. Friends tried not to interfere although they gradually came to see that relations in the family had become literally overheated. The daughter-in-law began to restrict her, the grandmother, in communications with her children and she stopped letting them go for a walk and gradually removed her from participating in raising the children. Tanya began leaving the house frequently and stopped attending to household affairs and care of the children. She explained her behavior and choice by saying that she had to go to the organization, to meetings, and that she had a certain plan that she had to work out. She had very old parents who required care, but she abandoned them, too, for the sake of affairs of the organization. Tanya's grandmother was 89 and was unable to take care of herself, but she did not get help from her granddaughter. She once dropped a boiling teapot. Tanya spent no time on her. Her relations with her husband changed. She adopted a tone in the course of arguments with him that tolerated no responses and when there was no agreement she displayed aggression; she rushed over to her husband and began tearing his shirt and undershirt. The daughter-in-law abandoned all household matters and did not do the wash or cook for the children. In response to a question about the possible consequences of her conduct, she said that what she considered most important for her were the services and that she now had brothers and sisters who were good for her. Relations between the witness and the daughter-in-law worsened substantially and there were incidents where she was not admitted to the house. She explained the cause of such relations by one thing--it is a matter of her teachings. In the time when she was in the organization the daughter-in-law changed all round and only for the worse, which caused unhappiness for everybody and especially for the children.

Witness S.Yu. Pikulev testified that he was married for fifteen years. The family had three daughters born in 1991, 1993, and 1996. His wife joined the organization in 1991. After this the wife's conduct began to change. It was as if previously he had known one person and now she has become a different person. She became more reserved, she acquired new interests, and she began to depart from the lifestyle that the family earlier had lived. Gradually many different people began appearing in the house; 100 persons could come in one week. After five years of membership in the organization he noticed that a change in families had occurred; the new family became more important than their family. With each year the burdens and occupation of the wife grew; she began working more and more at the organization. She left all the housework to the maids and she herself took the children and went to the organization. She practically abandoned society and refused to celebrate all holidays, since this is what the organization ordered her to do. It had become morally difficult to live with his wife since she would make no compromise. The affairs of the organization were what was important. His wife rejected all suggestions about restricting participation of the children in the oganization. Relations became so bad that he submitted to a court a request for restricting his wife's parental rights. His wife refused to spend time only with the family; she suggested going to the circus or theater but only with Jehovah's Witnesses or to go to some one of their events while his wishes in such suggestions were not taken into account. The accumulating disagreements got to the point where since 25 September 2003 they have been living separately; his wife and children live separate from him. At the same time he has maintained good relations with his wife's parents and other relatives, who also have noticed the changes in his wife's conduct. It has become difficult for grandmothers and grandfathers to spend time with grandchildren because the children have been turned against them. He himself is getting a divorce but he does not want to abandon her to the organization although now he is forced to live separately and in view of his wife's refusal to consent in the question of family relations he has taken the issue of time with the children to court.

According to the conclusion of a complex expert analysis conducted by a commission of specialists including religious studies specialists, linguists, psychologists, and literary scholars, "Jehovah's Witnesses subject family relations to the doctrine of membership in the society, putting pressure on the individual in the direction of substituting the value of 'our organization' for the values of the institution of the 'family.' Unconditional submission to all the rules and ongoing decisions of the leadership of the Jehovah's Witnesses, clear separation from the wider environment of children, youth, and adults, spending a great deal of time in activity ordered by the organization (even given hourly accounts)--all of this leads one to find them as destructive tendencies with regard to family life. The texts of the Jehovah's Witnesses do not contain explicit requirements of destroying the family, but they accomplish or tend toward the accomplishment of direct psychological pressure that is fraught with the danger of destruction of the family." This conclusion corresponds with the conclusions of specialists who study the impact of actions of associates on the psyche and psychology of people.

Witness E.V. Volkov, who is engaged in the study of psychology, testified that often people turn to him for help, whose relatives are members of the Jehovah's Witnesses organization, twice men with regard to their wives, more parents with regard to the disruption of their family relations with their children.

Witness F.V. Kondratiev, a psychiatrist, testified that he has had occasion to see in expert analyses and appeals from citizens that there are techniques of enticing people into such organizations by bombarding them with love and affirming that the organization is the new family for this favorite convert. Then a wall is erected between the new converts and relatives and friends. He has often had occasion to see how families break down.

Witness Yu.I. Polishchuk, a psychiatrist, testified that he worked with the Committee for the Salvation of Youth and saw numerous letters from parents and that he talked with people and learned that everything had been normal in the family but then the organization's influence was begun and conflict arose.

In the conduct of the complex expert analysis, a special, separate opinion was expressed by the religious studies scholar S.I. Ivanenko, who indicated that his study of the religious society's literature of admonition shows it promotes the strengthening of the family. The court considers that this assessment is not supported by the conclusions of other experts on matters of attitude toward the family, since it pertains only to the contents of generally available literature and not to the internal documents and actual activity of the Moscow society, which were established in the course of the judicial investigation and are confirmed by the above presented material. As regards the opinion of religious studies specialists N.S. Gordienko and N.V. Shaburov, they also studied the contents of generally accessible literature and doctrine. According to the conclusion of the complex psychological and linguistic expert analysis "the texts of the Jehovah's Witnesses organization do not contain information promoting actions directed to the destruction of the family." In the examination of texts of literature by linguists and a psycholinguist, exhortations and recommendations were subjected to analysis but not their implementation in life and their effect upon family interrelationships. Considering that the contents of doctrine in themselves cannot be an object of judicial evaluation, it is improper to use the evidence introduced as a basis for conclusions about the effect of activity of a religious society on the family. The court agrees with the conclusion of the complex expert analysis, since it corresponds with actual testimony received during the judicial investigation.

Rebutting the conclusion of the prosecutor, the defendants presented testimony from witnesses N.V. Gruzintseva, G.V. Bezhenar, and Kh.M. Dzafarov, who are not members of the organization but still maintained family relations. In assessment of the testimony of these persons the court notes that members of their families were forced to accept condition of this organization for fear of losing loved ones. Thus, witness N.V. Gruzintseva testified that, out of respect for the faith of her husband she does not celebrate any major holidays, she declines invitations to holidays at her own friends' homes, and consented to the refusal of blood transfusion.

Witness Kh.M. Dzhafarov testified that after studying the doctrines of Jehovah's Witnesses teaching he came to the conclusion that "this kind of Christian study is the most optimal and most corresponds to the understanding of how a person should study the Bible." Witness G.V. Bezhenar reported that he also studied the Bible with Jehovah's Witnesses and attended meetings and listened to all the talk. The court assesses critically the data of the sociological investigations of members of the Jehovah's Witnesses society conducted by sociologist A.I. Antonovy at the instigation of the defendant. In the conclusions of the study that was conducted it is noted that "analysis of the data of the survey shows an absence of any negative effect of the teachings and religious activity of Jehovah's Witnesses on intrafamily relations, on mutual relations between husbands and wives and parents and children. In practically all aspects of communication in the sphere of marriage and family there was discovered a positive influence of belonging to JW and also a salutary 'healing' in terms of its moral and humanitarian significance of the spiritual wounds of those who have confronted the unfortunate consequences of the global breakdown of the institution of the family." When he was questioned in judicial sessions, A.I. Antonov confirmed the conclusions he had made and gave an explanation of the circumstances of the study and its goals. The conclusion quoted was based on a study of the opinions and attitudes toward the family of members of the organization only. The study used lists supplied by the leadership of the society, the questionnaires were filled out in meetings and not independently, and the opinion of the families of these people was not investigated. From the text of the conclusion and the testimony of A.I. Antonov, it follows that he conducted a comparison between the religious concepts and attitudes toward the family and the attitude toward this concept in society at the present time. Thus what was done was a comparison of intentions, ideas, teaching, and attitudes, but not the actual state of affairs, and therefore the results of the study do not take note of a single case of intrafamily conflict which exists objectively. The conclusions of this specialist could be accepted by the court only in the places where they do not contradict other evidence in the case.

In its activity the Moscow society of Jehovah's Witnesses committed infringement on the personality, rights, and freedoms of citizens. According to article 23 of the constitution of RF everyone has the right to the inviolability of personal life and to individual and family privacy. Personal life includes freedom of solitude, meditation, establishing contacts with other people or refraining from such contacts and the privacy of the home. In considering the business of the organization to be most important, the religious society determines a permissible place of work and kind of occupations of their members, recommends that they select part-time work, which found expression in the texts of literature and is contained in the conclusion of the complex expert analysis. The conclusions made coincide with the testimony of witnesses, Yu. Pikulev about his wife's not working, A.I. Kusnetsov with regard to the work of his wife who selected a form of activity that permitted her to preach at the same time, and V.G. Arsenkinaia with regard to the question of the program of her labor activity.

Witness D.G. Burenkov testified that he and his wife were summoned to work at the regional religious society in Vefil, where they performed work necessary for the organization without regard to their specialties and education. Besides recommendations on choice of work, the religious society also determines the schedule of free time of its members and forbids them to celebrate holidays and birthdays. The implementation of this prohibition and the conformity of their private life with the opinion of the religious society was confirmed for the court by both members of the organization V.G. Arsenkina, D.G. Burenkov, and E.L. Slobodeniuk, and by their family members who were forced to observe the same prohibitions. V.G. Arsenkina, who worked in the folklore ensemble, refused to participate in performances of the collective if these were done in connection with publicly accepted holidays. In particular, N.V. Gruzintseva, who refused to observe holidays out of respect for the convictions of her husband, and R.A. Zemlianskaia, whose husband deprived her of usual signs of attention and ceased to give greetings for any holidays and birthdays.

From the contents of the teaching of Jehovah's Witnesses flows the obligatory missionary activity of preaching "from door to door." Exercising their own freedom of religious confession, members of the religious society in the city of Moscow are not interested in the opinion of the persons whom they approach and into whose private life they intrude. By the sentence of the Nagatin district court of Moscow of 15 March 2001, V.N. Kiselev was found guilty of beating G.G. Statkevich, who persistently offered his wife Jehovah's Witnesses literature in his apartment and tried to intrude into his private life and disrupted the peace of his family.

According to the conclusion of the complex expert analysis, the Jehovah's Witnesses organization is different from organizations similar to it in the detailed accounting and record keeping, that is, indicators that are essential for a political organizations. The harsh theocratic hierarchy of the community, its orientation toward the "non-thinking" of individual members of the association, its attempt to integrate families into the life of a totally powerful, isolated collective, and indicators of militarized discipline of the life of Jehovists regulated by the texts studied by the expert analysis distinguish Jehovah's Witnesses from traditional religions. Such distinctiveness of the organization was confirmed by the conclusion of F.G. Ovsienko. Testimony concerning this was given to the court by religious studies specialists N.S. Gordienko and N.V. Shaburov. Coincidental with the establishment of a hierarchy, the organization suggests to its members that they present accounts of this work for the benefit of the organization and of preaching, and the free time activities of each is supposed to take account of the business of services. The necessity of filling out accounts about the number of hours spent in preaching was confirmed for the court by witnesses R.A. Zemlianskaia, who observed the composition of accounts by her husband, N.Yu. Zhuravleva and E.L. Slobodeniuk, members of the organization at the present time, and D.V. Moskalev, a former member of the organization--they all kept accounts or continue to keep accounts for the organization about the number of hours spent in preaching.

The extent of the burdens of the business of the organization for its members was described in their testimony by V.G. Arsenkina, relative to herself and her daughter, who spent time attending meetings and preaching in home studies to the extent her health allowed, Kh.M. Dzhafarov, with regard to his wife who was away from home for participation in preaching or religious events, and R.A. Zemlianskaia, whose husband was unable due to age and energy to combine work for the organization with family business.

In accordance with article 38 of the constitution of RF, care for children and their education constitute an equal right and obligation of the parents. The activity of the Moscow religious society is attended by a violation of this right and leads to a situation where minors are enticed into preaching and other religious acts, including very young chidren, without the consent of the other parent who is not a member of the society. Witnesses Yu.A. Zhuralev, S.Yu. Pikulev, and A.I Kuznetsov testified that their wives continued to take their children to preaching and meetings despite their categorical complaints and they were excluded from participation in raising their own children and resolving of such questions as choice of religious belief for the children. V.G. Beliakov turned to an office of guardianship and care with a request to prohibit his wife from using his son Alesha Beliakov in the organization of the Jehovah's Witnesses. Witnesses N.G. Vishneva and T.N. Fedorova testified that their daughter-in-law and daughter (in the latter's case) took their children to the Jehovah's Witnesses organization despite the opinion of the fathers of their grandchildren. The disagreements that arose among the parents on the question of raising their children, connected with their participation in the religious society of Jehovah's Witnesses, in a number of instances became the object of judicial investigation and subsequent suits for turning over the children to the other parent for rearing. Such a suit was presented in Cheremushkin district court in Moscow by A.I. Kuznetsov in regard to his two sons. At the present time a case on the request of S.Yu. Pikulev to restrict his wife's parental rights is underway in the Nagatin district court of Moscow. The court considers the active participation in the review of these cases by attorneys who collaborate closely with the Jehovah's Witnesses organization in support of the parent who is a member of the organization against the second parent as a manifestation of an interest in the outcome of the case by the organization itself and interference in the familial and personal affairs of its members. The materials of the case contain a similar appeal of the religious meeting in the Kuznetsov case. The exercise of the principle of freedom of conscience and choice of religious for children, taking into account their own opinion and interests, is provided for by international and Russian standards of rights. The Convention on the Rights of the Child suggest that governments act, taking into account the importance of traditions and cultural values for the protection and harmonious development of the child. Participating states guarantee the healthy development of the child, and the right of the child to rest, leisure, participation in games and entertainment corresponding to his age is recognized. Despite this guaranteed right, members of the Jehovah's Witnesses religious society of Moscow lured their children into participation in the activity of this organization without regard to their opinion, state of health, and the interests of the development of the personality of their children. Witness N.G. Vishneva testified that her daughter-in-law Tatiana was a member of the Moscow religious society and she lured her children into participation in preaching, one of whom was five and the other ten. The younger child returned from preaching and lay down directly on the floor out of exhaustion, and the older one told his grandmother that because of the stuffiness of the premises his head began to spin and caused him to vomit. The older child, who is in school, did his lessons and hurried off to the preaching. The mother has no time to visit exhibits or museums. Because of the discourses of the mother, the children have imbibed a negative attitude toward the state and service in the army and a dislike of Orthodox believers. Even without this the older boy is weakly since he has problems with his spine, anemia, and asthma.

Witness T.N. Fedorova testified that her daughter Yulia became a member of the Jehovah's Witnesses religious society in approximately 1997 after having been left alone with two children following a first unsuccessful marriage and the death of her second husband. At the time the children were two and four. Under the guise of taking a walk she began taking them with her to preaching. The boy, who attended child care, wanted to participate in holidays and perform a dance. The mother did not permit him to do this because of the taboos of the organization, and on holidays she simply did not take him to child care. This same prohibition also was laid upon the younger child's (a girl) participation in holidays also, despite her wish and vigor. Attendance at meetings continued and was accompanied by beatings of the children and punishment through food deprivation. An hourly schedule operates with stern accounting and Alesha even was drawn into this and he also kept his own accounts. On 27 December 2001 Alesha wanted to go to the school to get his diary and for the morning session, and he refused to go to a book study at the organization. The mother dragged the boy by the hair into his room and from there came the cries and screams of the boy. Compulsion of children to go to events of the religious organization happened before this, too. In January 2002 she and her husband turned to the office of guardianship for applying measure for protection of the children from the will of the mother. After this the daughter left and lived for some time with the children in another apartment. The boy became very tired from the continual and frequent events of the religious organization and he complained about this, saying that in the organization they demand and demand all the time. In the summer during vacation the daughter took the children for book studies from Aprelevka to another settlement which took up five hours each time, including four hours of travel. The children arrived absolutely exhausted. During a vacation in the south at the same time there were preaching and meetings. Daily Alesha goes off to school at eight o'clock, and he works, with a short break, until nine in the evening. As punishment or because of lack of time, the mother does not cook for the children and feeds them kasha without butter and sugar. The children's main food is what they are provided in school.

[follow this link to part two: Decision of Golovin court}

Russia Religion News Current News Items

If material is quoted, please give credit to the publication from which it came.
It is not necessary to credit this Web page. If material is transmitted electronically, please include reference to the URL, http://www.stetson.edu/~psteeves/relnews/.