jw-media.org response
<snip> Arli Chimirov, the lawyer representing the interests of Jehovah’s Witnesses, decried the ruling: “Today’s decision by the Supreme Court is a ruling against the freedom to manifest religious beliefs, and it affirms a misapplication of the Federal Law on Counteracting Extremist Activity to Jehovah’s Witnesses, who distribute these publications internationally. Jehovah’s Witnesses will appeal this matter to the European Court of Human Rights in order to protect freedom of religion in Russia, including the right to worship using religious literature of one’s choice and to peacefully share one’s beliefs with others. Meanwhile, I fear there will be many more acts of religious intolerance and hatred taken against Jehovah’s Witnesses because of the Court’s ruling.” </snip>
Appeal to the ECHR - hmmmmmmm......is Russia even subject to the ECHR?
YES.
http://www.allacademic.com//meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/2/7/8/6/9/pages278691/p278691-1.php
Abstract: Within the context of a broader study of transnational institutions and accountability, this paper examines the European Court of Human Rights’ effect on accountability within Russia’s political and judicial systems. Russia’s experience withthe ECHR to date has produced an ambivalent response from the Russian political leadership and judicial system. While the government continues to enforce citizens’ rights only selectively and has not changed course on some of the major issues raised in ECHR decisions, there are signs that Russia has taken steps toward remedying some of the human rights violations most frequently raised at the ECHR by its citizens. Russian judges, too, are paying attention to the ECHR’s rulings to varying degrees, which may in the long run improve the state’s legal accountability mechanisms. But over the decade during which Russia has been subject to ECHR rulings, the Russian government has become more authoritarian, not less. While transnational legal institutions like the ECHR give the aggrieved citizens of non rule-of-law states like Russia a chance for a fairhearing, their ability to force more than marginal improvements in governmentalaccountability is highly constrained.
Short answer - good luck with your appeal WTBTS.
You reap what you sow seems applicable here.
Try letting your members exercise religious freedom when they leave the group before seeking that freedom for proselytizing recruiting new members.
To all those people that defend the right for groups such as the WTBTS to exist - what answer do they offer to the abuse of rights of innocent victims of that group?
My sons cannot have any sort of normal relationship with their paternal grandmother or their only uncle and his wife due to WTBTS shunning policy.
Who defends the rights of my sons aged 4 and aged 2?
