RUSSIA
RELIGION NEWS|
|
|
Links
to Useful
Information |
COURT RETURNS CASE OF SAKHAROV MUSEUM DIRECTOR TO PROSECUTOR
Mir religii, 17 June 2004
At yesterday's session the Taganka court of Moscow returned to the prosecutor of the Central Administrative DIstrict of Moscow the criminal case with respect to the director of the Sakharov museum and community center, Yury Samodurov, his associate Liudmila Vasilovaia, and artist Anna Mikhalchuk, who are accused of inciting religious strife.
As reported by an "Interfax" agency reporter, the court ordered the prosecutor to "remove all violations in the indictment" within five days.
Previously, after the indictment was issued, the defendants in the case stated that the "accusation is unclear and it lacks specificity."
"The court found the conclusions of the defendants and their defense regarding the lack of specificity of the indictment to be convincing. According to the standards of the Criminal Procedural Code, the place and time of the commission of a crime, along with other circumstances, are supposed to be indicated," Judge Natalia Larina said, in issuing her order.
In the opinion of the court, it is unclear from the indictment "how the incitement of religious strife was expressed and specifically to which ethnic group."
As is known, the prosecutor of the central Moscow district opened a criminal case with respect to the director of the museum on the basis of article 282 of the Criminal Code of the Russian federation, "incitement of ethnic, racial, or religious strife."
The basis for the investigation was the contents of the "Beware, Religion!" exhibition that was displayed in the museum from 14 to 18 January 2003.
The displays of the exhibition included, in particular, an icon of the Savior against the background of a "Coca Cola" advertisement with the inscription "This is my blood." The exhibition also displayed the figure of a saint with the face cut out so that anyone who wanted could insert his head.
The investigation reached the conclusion that the aim of the exhibition "was a public expression in an overt, demonstrative form of disparagement and offense with respect to the Christian religion as a whole and to Orthodox Christianity and the Russian Orthodox church in particular, as well as toward religious symbols of Orthodox believers," the indictment notes.
Meanwhile, Yury Samodurov denies his guilt. "I am convinced that there were no works in the exhibition that intended to disparage anybody's convictions or religious confession," he noted. "The existence of tabooed topics will lead to modern, critical art's losing its meaning. The exhibition was simply an occasion for talking about various aspects of religion," the director of the museum explained.
Representatives of the Orthodox community disagreed with this opinion. "The arguments of 'rights' defenders' who try to transform a profoundly criminal matter into an issue of politics and ideology are amazing," a statement of the Union of Orthodox Citizens that was delivered to Interfax said.
According to the authors of the document, "in this case rights' defenders actually are speaking out against a legal state and the elements of the exhibition offend deeply the feelings not only of millions of Orthodox citizens of Russia but also the values of genuine art and all right-thinking people, since desecration of sacred things is an offense against the god-given creative foundation in mankind."
Meanwhile, state's attorney Kira Gudim disagreed with the decision of Judge Natalia Larina regarding the return of the case to the prosecutor of the Central Administrative Districe for "specification of the indictment." This was stated in a statement from the press service of the Moscow prosecutor's office given to RIA Novosti.
In the opinion of the state's attorney, the formulation of the indictment corresponds to the requirements of the law and evidence existing in the materials of the case. In connection with this the state's attorney has prepared a representation for rescinding the order of the judge of the Taganka court regarding the return of the criminal case to the prosecutor of the Central Administrative District. It will be presented in court on 17 June. (tr. by PDS, posted 17 June 2004)
COURT UPBRAIDS PROCURACY OVER CONTROVERSIAL RELIGIOUS EXHIBITION
BBC Monitoring International Reports, 16 June 2004
ITAR-TASS news agency, Moscow
Moscow's Taganskiy court today referred the criminal case against Yuriy Samodurov, director of the Andrey Sakharov museum and public centre, his employee Lyudmila Vasilovskaya and artist Anna Mikhalchuk back to the central administrative district procuracy.
They are charged with stirring up ethnic enmity in connection with the exhibition they had organized, called Beware: Religion!
The court ordered all violations which had been allowed to find their way into the indictment to be removed within five days.
Yesterday the accused and their defence team entered a plea that the indictment had been compiled in violation of the Code of Criminal Procedure and that it is non-specific.
Apart from that the accused stated they "do not understand what the specific charges are". (posted 17 June 2004)
IF MR PUTIN BELIEVES IN DEMOCRACY, THERE SHOULD NOT BE SHOW TRIALS IN RUSSIA
The Independent, 16 June 2004
Two trials open this week in Moscow that carry unfortunate echoes of the bad old days of the Soviet Union, when the thought police were ever on the prowl and the least sign of ideological dissent was crushed.
First in the dock, yesterday, was the head of the city's Sakharov museum, charged with blasphemy for organising an exhibition that, in the prosecutor's view, profaned Russian Orthodoxy.
And today, after months of legal wrangling, the trial opens of Mikhail Khodorkovsky and his associate, Platon Lebedev, who were formerly - and probably still are - among the richest men in Russia. They are charged with fraud and tax evasion on a grand scale, when they headed Russia's biggest oil company, Yukos.
What connects these two trials are the claims of the defendants and their lawyers that the charges against them are politically motivated. The lawyer for the museum director argues that the Kremlin has brought the blasphemy charges to punish the museum for its very public opposition to Russia's war in Chechnya. The thrust of Mr Khodorkovsky's defence is expected to be that he was picked out for punishment because he openly expressed an ambition to stand against Vladimir Putin for the Russian presidency.
It is a sad reflection on the half-heartedness with which President Putin has pursued judicial reform in Russia that accusations of political interference come so automatically to defence lawyers, more than a decade after the end of Communist rule. It is more regrettable still that in these two otherwise very different cases the theory of a political motivation should seem so plausible. Yet there are important differences between them.
Blasphemy, as we know from trials in our own country and elsewhere not so long ago, raises fierce passions. What is shockingly blasphemous to some leaves others indifferent. Deciding whether there is an offence - or even whether blasphemy should feature on the statute book of a secular state at all - is a matter for individual countries and the level of tolerance will depend to an extent on the public consensus. The post-Soviet Russian state is still defining itself, but one aspect of national identity that has grown in importance is Orthodoxy. Russians themselves must define what is acceptable. The presence outside the court yesterday of protesters denouncing a new "Inquisition" was evidence at least of a debate.
The Khodorkovsky case is different. He and Mr Lebedev ran arguably Russia's most successful company. Like other so-called "oligarchs", they made their fortunes during the corrupt and chaotic period when state assets were privatised. Sometimes compared to the heyday of early capitalism in America, these were years in which dog ate dog and only the "fittest" survived. Few of Russia's richest individuals today will have arrived where they are without committing some crime, for which they will always be vulnerable before the law.
So the question to pose as the Yukos trial begins is less "are the defendants guilty?" - it is highly unlikely that they have no financial or tax crime to answer - than "why is it that these particular men have ended up in the dock?" And to this question there are many possible answers. One theory is that the Kremlin moved against Yukos to prevent a foreign (US) company becoming a majority shareholder. Another is that Mr Khodorkovsky, like many of the oligarchs who have found themselves in trouble, was singled out because he is Jewish. A third is that Mr Khodorkovsky broke an unofficial concordat with the Kremlin under which the "oligarchs" would be left to enjoy their wealth so long as they kept out of politics. A fourth is that Mr Putin, a known bearer of grudges, simply dislikes Mr Khodorkovsky and always has.
There are, then, many possible explanations for what increasingly, and disgracefully, resembles a Kremlin-orchestrated show-trial designed to keep the "oligarchs" out of politics. But none of them is acceptable in a civilised, law-governed society of the sort that - Mr Putin insists - Russia aspires to be. (posted 17 June 2004)
MOSCOW COURT KEEPS BAN ON JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES
by Steven Lee Myers
New York Times, 17 June 2004
An appellate court in Moscow on Wednesday upheld a ban on Jehovah's Witnesses in the city, a ruling the group's leaders said reflected mounting pressure on some faiths in Russia.
The decision culminated six years of legal proceedings. Prosecutors sought to halt the group's activities on the ground that they posed a threat to Russian society.
Under Russia's complex laws governing religious minorities, the Jehovah's Witnesses are registered on the national level and in nearly 400 other cities in Russia, though not in Moscow itself. The ban affects only the group's activities here, but its leaders expressed fear that the ruling could presage similar efforts in other cities, where adherents have faced harassment.
''Once you get a decision like this, it's open season,'' John M. Burns, the group's Canadian lawyer, said.
How exactly the ban will be enforced is not clear, though the prosecutor, Tatyana Kondryatyeva, told the court's three judges that the group would be prohibited from renting buildings for religious services and from distributing literature.
After a four-hour hearing, the judges returned with a ruling after only five minutes, upholding a lower court's decision in March to ban the Moscow chapter.
The group can appeal the decision in the Russian courts, but Mr. Burns said it would turn to the European Court of Human Rights.
The State Department's report on religious freedom, released last December, cited numerous examples of official or unofficial harassment of the Jehovah's Witnesses and other faiths that do not have the status of official religions in Russia, as do Islam, Judaism and Buddhism.
In Washington last month, Steven K. Pifer, the deputy assistant secretary of state for European affairs, cited the case as an example of the Russian authorities' ''seeking greater control in the area of religious affairs.'' (posted 17 June 2004)
LAWYERS CHALLENGE RESOLUTION BANNING JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES
ITAR-TASS, 16 June 2004
The Moscow city court has left in force a previous resolution passed by the Golovinsky Moscow district court that banned the Jehovah's Witnesses organization in Moscow. Thus, the Moscow city court turned down an appeal lodged by the Jehovah's witnesses who challenged the court resolution of March 26.
On March 26, the Golovinsky district court satisfied a request made by the prosecutor's office of the Moscow North Administrative District Court for the liquidation of Jehovah's Witnesses organization in Moscow.
After an inquiry the prosecutor's office established that the religious sect provoked religious strife, destroyed the institution of a family and also made sick people give up medical assistance for religious reasons. All these facts were used as legal grounds for the liquidation of the religious organization in accordance with the Law on the freedom of conscience.
The court hearings into the case have continued since September 1998. Spokeswoman for the prosecutor's office Tatiana Kondratyeva said that the documents of the organization had been checked twice, and more than 20 witnesses, including children forced by their parents to join the sect, were interrogated.
On Wednesday, the lawyers for the Jehovah's witnesses threatened to appeal to a superior surveillance judicial body and lodge a complaint with the European Court, lawyer Artur Leontyev said Wednesday.
After the court resolution comes into force the Moscow department of the Justice Ministry shall remove the Jehovah's Witnesses sect from the list of officially registered public and religious organizations. (posted 17 June 2004)
COURT UPHOLDS, ENACTS JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES BAN
MosNews,com, 16 June 2004
The Moscow City Appeal Court has upheld a lower courtıs decision to ban the activity of Jehovah's Witnesses in the Russian capital, stripping the religious organization of its status as a legal entity, in a six-year case seen by many as a reflection of religious freedom in Russia.
The ruling, in effect, "outlaws 11,000 citizens with one swoop," Christian Presber, Russiaıs representative for Jehovahıs Witnesses, told MosNews.
The religious group had appealed a March 26 ruling by the Golovinsky Intermunicipal District Court that the organization be banned in Moscow. The current ruling upholds that decision, allowing it to come into force.
The decision to ban Jehovah's Witnesses was immediately seen as an attack on religious freedoms instead of a reaction to any wrongdoings on the part of the group. "[Judge Vera] Dubinskaya said Jehovah's Witnesses don't celebrate national holidays and don't serve in the military," Presber said, quoting how the judge had explained her ruling.
"Does this mean authorities are going to go house to house to see what parents are teaching their children?" Presber told MosNews, "does it mean theyıre going to force them to take up arms?"
Jehovah's Witnesses, registered on a federal level in Russia, have already appealed to the European Court on the issue. The court inquired with the Russian government, and was given the answer that the religious organization had the status of a legal entity in the country, Presber said. But now that they no longer have this status in Moscow, the case will be updated both on a federal level, where Presber hopes for a positive response, and in the European Court.
In the meantime, Presber said, the ruling will mean that Jehovah's Witnesses will be barred from renting spaces for meetings and from owning buildings. "People will now have to gather in their own apartments," he said.
The Jehovah's Witnesses community was founded in Russia by Charles Russell in 1891, and currently has 11,000 adherents in Moscow and 133,000 throughout Russia.
The first lawsuit against the community was filed in 1998 by a regional prosecutor, accusing Jehovah's Witnesses of inciting religious discord, breaking up families, violating individual Russian citizens' rights, inclining people to commit suicide and luring teenagers and minors. In 2001, prosecutors of the capitalıs northern district dismissed the complaints. Although the community is registered on the federal level, the City of Moscow Department of Justice has refused to register or re-register any community of Jehovahıs Witnesses under a 1997 law allowing a religion to be deemed "anti-state".
In their press release, a copy of which was received by MosNews, Jehovah's Witnesses called this decision a "a flagrant violation of the Moscow City Court's responsibility to protect the rights of citizens guaranteed by the Constitution." (posted 17 June 2004)
Religiia v svetskom obshchestve, 17 June 2004
On 16 June in Paris during a special session of CSCE [Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe] devoted to the question of the links between propaganda of racism, xenophobia, and antisemitism and hate crimes, a member of the official Russian delegation, FSB General Professor V.V. Ostroukhov (an academician of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences and doctor of juridical sciences) presented a report, "Propaganda of terrorism and xenophobia on the Internet." In his address he dealt with the "group of Internet resources that propangandize xenophobia and the sites of nontraditional religious doctrines and sects." V.V. Ostroukhov declared: "As a rule, such religious groups cultivate in their adherents a fanatical inclination and rejection of other religions. At the same time, through the Internet any who wish can without difficulty acquaint themselves with the contents of the doctrines of "Aum Shinrikyo," (www.people.unov.ru/iskon; www.sanga.ru), the "Jehovah's Witnesses (www.bashniastrazhi.bu.ru), and satanic and other sects."
Information: Using the common Internet browser in the Russian Internet space, Yandex (www.yandex.ru) one can reach the sites of the religious organizations of Hare Krishna and "Jehovah's Witnesses," and become acquainted with diverse interpretations of satanic cults. (tr. by PDS, posted 17 June 2004)
Russia Religion News Current News Items