Copyrighted material. For private use only.
The schism among Russian Muslims is continuing. It was created by the struggle for power between a former chief mufti of Russia, Talgat Tajuddin, and the Council of Muftis of Russia, headed by the Moscow mufti, Ravil Gainuddin. The Council of Muftis of Russia issued a statement which said: "On the program Itogi, on 14 November 1999, one of the former leaders of Muslims, Talgat Tajuddin . . . declared almost all of Russia's Muslims and almost all of the Muslim Spiritual Boards of the country to be 'enemies of the people' . . . . We pray to Almighty Allah that he would have mercy on this unfortunate man, but we decisively condemn those forces which have stirred up Islamophobia by his hands in the majority of the mass media."
The government of Russia still has not reacted officially in any way to the conflict that could have serious consequences for the unity of the multiconfessional Russian federation. (tr. by PDS)
(posted 24 November 1999)
Russia's Constitutional Court eased one of the most controversial aspects of the country's 1997 religion law in a ruling on Tuesday. Judge Valery Zorkin said that the requirement that an organization be in existence for 15 years before registering is constitutional, but that groups established before the law's enactment and those that are part of centralized organizations are exempt.
The ruling is "great news" for many of the 10,000 religious groups that have been unable to reregister under the new law, says human rights attorney Lauren Homer, president of Law and Liberty Trust. "It sounds like Zorkin tried to come up with a decision that would not cause too much of a ruckus at home while satisfying outside interest groups," she said in an interview with Newsroom. "The court tried to take a middle ground and not find the law unconstitutional, but find a way that the majority of groups could reregister without special problems."
Russia researcher Paul Steeves of Florida's Stetson University concurs. "It's more diplomatic than legal reasoning," he said. "I suspect Zorkin is uncomfortable with the logical bind he is going to get into when he compares the 15-year rule with international law."
The case was brought by a Jehovah's Witnesses group in Jaroslavl and another group from Abakan which claimed that the 15-year rule was discriminatory. The Jehovah's Witnesses have been battling the law since a court tried to ban the group in Moscow. Prosecutors in the Russian capital filed that case under a provision of the new law that gives courts the right to bar religious groups that break up families and preach intolerance.
Human rights groups have criticized the 1997 law primarily because it creates a two-tiered system granting preference to Russia's "traditional" religions: Eastern Orthodox Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, and Judaism. The critics, including the Jehovah's Witnesses, point out that a group can be denied registration on grounds that can be interpreted arbitrarily, including "undermining the social order;" "forcing a family to disintegrate;" and "the infliction of damage … on the mortality or health of citizens."
The September 1997 law replaced the 1990 law on freedom of conscience, which was praised by many human rights groups for its protection of religious liberties. Russia researcher Mark Elliott, director of The Global Center at Beeson Divinity School in Alabama, noted in a detailed written assessment of the new law that it was "somewhat revised, but not substantively different from" the July 1997 draft that President Yeltsin rejected under heavy international pressure.
Though many non-traditional groups have suffered restrictions or harassment under the law, its uneven and often loose implementation has made life easier than expected for most groups, Elliot points out. "I think administrative practice has always been more important than whatever the law is," he told Newsroom. "The law is draconian, but it hasn't been as strictly enforced as the letter of the law would require."
Many groups have been able to get around the 15-year rule by registering as part of a centralized organization -- an organization that operates in at least three of Russia's 89 regions -- but thousands of local independent groups have been left out, meaning that the scope of their activity is generally limited to worshiping in a small group. Unregistered groups cannot, for example, rent facilities for meetings or distribute religious literature.
Tuesday's ruling means that groups that have been established since September 1997 and are not part of a centralized organization are still bound by the 15-year rule. Homer notes that this apparently would include groups such as the Jesuits, a Catholic order that wants to register in Russia independently from the Roman Catholic church.
Every one of the 17,000 religious entities registered under the 1990 law -- from denominations, to diocese, to local congregations -- have been facing a December 1999 deadline to reregister. Only about 7,000 of those groups have been successful so far. "It's very bad when organizations that have vested legal rights are dispossessed, which is what the 1997 law tried to do," Homer says. According to her sources in Moscow, however, the Duma is likely to vote any day to extend the deadline by one year.
JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES DEFENDED THEIR RIGHTS
by Ivan Sas
Segodnia, 24 November 1999
The Constitutional Court of the Russian federation recognized that the plaintiffs were right and wrong at the same time.
The attempt to argue the constitutionality of several provisions of the federal law "On freedom of conscience and religious association," brought by two religious association, the Jehovah's Witnesses of Yaroslavl and Pentecostals of Khakasiia, ended in partial victory. Yesterday the Constitutional Court (KS) issued a verdict: although the restrictions provided by the law which the plaintiffs contested do not violate the constitution of RF, the rights of recently created affiliates of religious associations that have existed for a long time on the territory of RF should be protected.
The essence of the suit is the following. According to the law, religious associations that have existed in a given territory for less than fifteen years are required to reregister every year. Besides this, until they have existed for fifteen years they do not have the right to publish, acquire and distribute religious literature, invite foreign preachers, conduct their rituals in hospitals and children's institutions, or receive exemption from military service. Consequently, the plaintiffs allege, this is a violation of the constitutional principle of the equality of citizens and religious organizations before the law.
The decision of KS argued that restrictions on the activity of religious associations may still be provided by law "if this is necessary in the interests of guaranteeing public peace and maintaining legal order, health, and morality." It would seem that the plaintiffs were quite justified in being dissatisfied. However, they left the court building in an upbeat mood. The point was that the decision of the court contained a certain "balanced" feature. Specifically it is impossible to restrict the rights of local religious organizations that have not existed for fifteen years but which are members of a registered centralized association which has already existed that long. "Thus the court protected our local congregations from the oppression of the procurators," a representative of the Administrative Center of Jehovah's Witnesses in Russia, Alexis Nazarychev, told Segodnia. The center has existed in Russia for fifty years already. This standard will apply also to other religious associations.
In the opinion of a member of the Moscow College of Advocates, Galina Krylova, who often represents the interests of various religious organizations in courts, "the court got out of the situation brilliantly; it reviewed the standard of the law only in that portion which had been applied. But the unconstitutionality of many other standards of this law are obvious." Thus the problem has not been eliminated; it will show up again. (tr. by PDS)
YESTERDAY'S SOLOMONIC DECISION
by Maxim Shevchenko
Nezavisimaia gazeta, 24 November 1999
The review of the arguments submitted respectively by the religious association "Christian Church of Glorification" (Khakasiia) and the religious society of Jehovah's Witnesses of the city of Yaroslavl "concerning the unconstitutionality of point 3 of article 27 of the federal law 'On freedom of conscience and religious association,' was conducted in the Constitutional Court of the Russian federation back on 21 October. It is this point of the law, which restricted the rights of religious organizations "that do not have documents confirming their existence in the corresponding territory for a period of at least fifteen years" (art. 27, pt. 3), that evoked the most criticism. As reported by Keston News Service, Andrei Sebentsov, the acting chair of the Commission on Affairs of Religious Associations of the government of the Russian federation, noted that of 17,000 existing religious organizations, the requirement to cease practical activity could be applied to at least 12,000, (including 6,000 Orthodox, 1500 Muslim, 140 Buddhist, 70 Jewish societies) since they were registered after 1990 and have not existed for the fifteen year period. In the soviet period, it seems, they had no possibility of registering but their illegal ixistence could be confirmed by digging through the KGB archives.
Yesterday the court's decision was published. It was truly "Solomonic." The law was declared to be "not in violation of the constitution." Regarding those associations that were registered before 1997, the decision states that they "enjoy the rights of legal entity in full, without providing proof of existence for a minimum of fifteen years on the corresponding territory, without annual reregistration and without restrictions." In other words, appeals to the era of totalitarianism are not taken into account; if in the six years of democracy beginning from 1991 citizens managed to put their religious aspirations into organizational form and inform the state of this, then they should not have any problems with "performance of their cult." (tr by PDS)
LAW ON RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATIONS TO BE RECONSIDERED
What the Papers Say
24 November 1999
On November 23, the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation
announced a decision on the legitimacy of the law on freedom of conscience
and religious organizations. The law, which was issued in 1997, drew
protests from representatives of non-traditional religions.
According to the Justice Ministry, there are over 16, 000 religious
organizations in Russia now. According to the law of 1997, religious
organizations that have been active in Russia for less than 15 years are
deprived of some rights. They must be re-registered every year for 15
years, and they are not entitled to open schools, invite foreign
preachers, and sell or give away their literature. According
to the decision of the Constitutional Court, all religious organizations
registered in Russia before 1997 have equal rights. Those organizations
that were registered after September 26, 1997 will have to obey the
old law, since the court did not even consider their situation, because
they had not lodged an appeal.
ORT, Novosti, November 23, 1999, 15:00
RELIGIOUS GROUP WINS COURT RULING
By David Hoffman
Washington Post Foreign Service
24 November 1999
MOSCOW, Nov. 23—The Russian Constitutional Court today rejected a prosecutor's attempt to shut down a religious congregation under a controversial 1997 law, but at the same time upheld the government's authority to limit the activity of religious faiths, which has been widely criticized in the West.
The decision, which came in a closely watched test case, could make it more difficult to ban some local religious groups. Implementation of the law has been monitored by many groups that fear it could lead to a weakening of Russia's constitutional pledge not to establish an official state religion.
The case decided today arose when the prosecutor in the town of Yaroslavl, northeast of Moscow, attempted to close the local branch of the Jehovah's Witnesses on grounds that the congregation did not have documents showing that it existed more than 15 years ago, as the law requires.
The congregation claimed it did not need the documents because the Jehovah's Witnesses had been certified in Moscow as meeting the requirement. The group says it has operated for more than 50 years in Russia, but in Soviet times was hidden to avoid persecution by the authorities.
The Constitutional Court backed the Jehovah's Witnesses, who were joined in the case by a Pentecostal congregation from Khakassia. "This is a victory without a doubt," said Arthur Leontiev, a lawyer for the group. "This is the first step in this direction."
Under the 1997 law, a much-criticized provision created a two-tier system for recognizing religions in Russia. Those in the first tier are defined as the "traditional" Russian faiths, including Orthodoxy, Judaism, Islam and Buddhism, and enjoy full rights. But "nontraditional" faiths in the second tier may have their activities severely limited.
These second-level groups must prove they have been on Russian soil for 15 years. If not, they cannot set up educational institutions, produce or distribute religious literature or invite foreign citizens into the country. Critics have charged that this second-class category was created at the behest of the Russian Orthodox Church, which, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, wanted to minimize proselytizing by outside religions.
By some estimates there are more than 10,000 small religious groups that could be affected by these restrictions, which have not yet been fully enforced.
In today's decision, the court upheld the government's right to impose restrictions on religion. The court said restrictions would have to be in the interest of public health, safety, order or morals, and protection of the rights of other persons, according to a summary provided by Russian news agencies.
The court also supported the state's right to set barriers before groups can be officially registered, in order to prevent "the legalization of sects that violate human rights and commit unlawful and criminal deeds." The court also sanctioned the government "to obstruct missionary activities," in particular if they are "accompanied by offers of material or social benefits with the purpose of recruiting new members for a church, the unlawful influence on people in need or distress, psychological pressure or threat of force," the Interfax news agency quoted the court as saying.
However, the court did not explicitly reevaluate the two-tiered religion system, which may be challenged in future cases.
Last April, Russia re-registered the national office of the Jehovah's Witnesses. But many other smaller groups are not registered and their rights are restricted.
© Copyright 1999 The Washington Post Company
(posted 24 November 1999)
MOSCOW—Russia’s Constitutional Court released its decision upholding the clause in the 1997 law requiring religions applying for registration to show documented proof of their presence in Russia for more than 15 years.
However, the Court ruled that this clause would not apply to congregations that were registered before passage of the 1997 law or to congregations that are part of a registered "centralized religious organization." The Court stated that the 15-year clause must be taken in context with the rest of the law and not viewed in isolation alone.
The result is that the congregations of some religions, such as the two involved in this case—Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Pentecostals—should not experience difficulty from the 15-year rule when applying for registration. On the other hand, the decision also means that the congregations of many other minority religions will still face this obstacle.
This case did not address other controversial aspects of the 1997 law on religion, which include distinguishing between "religious organizations" and "religious groups," with denial of basic rights to the latter.
Judge V. Zorkin of the Constitutional Court affirmed Russia’s commitment to standards of international law, which define religious freedom as an inalienable human right, and acknowledged the authority of the European Court of Human Rights on this issue.
This challenge to the 1997 law was brought by the Yaroslavl Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Glorification Pentecostal Church in Khakassia. The Yaroslavl Congregation has been in existence since 1967 but was registered only in 1992. After passage of the 1997 law, the public prosecutor in Yaroslavl declared some of the congregation’s activities illegal, primarily because the congregation did not have an official document confirming its existence in Yaroslavl for at least 15 years.
According to the Deputy Chairman of the Commission of Religious Associations of the Russian Federation, at least 12,000 of the more than 17,000 religious organizations in Russia are threatened with liquidation by judicial order.
The national office of Jehovah’s Witnesses received reregistration on April 29, 1999, as a religious organization with more than 50 years in Russia. Jehovah’s Witnesses have been present in Russia for more than a century and are legally registered in 158 countries.
RUSSIAN COURT LOOSENS BONDS ON RELIGIOUS GROUPS
Reuters, November 23, 1999
MOSCOW (Reuters) -- Russia's Constitutional Court loosened the bonds restricting religious groups in the former Soviet state on Tuesday, a move the Jehovah's Witnesses hailed as a step forward for human rights.
The court softened part of a controversial 1997 law "On freedom of conscience and religious organisations" which had asked religious groups to prove they had existed for 15 years before being registered in Russia.
The Jehovah's Witnesses had sought the scrapping of the clause, saying it was discriminatory as many groups had been outlawed in Soviet times.
The court waived the clause for most larger "non-traditional" religious groups. The Jehovah's Witnesses said the court ruling was a partial victory.
"To some degree it is a victory for the Jehovah's Witnesses and other religious organisations. Everyone should have equal rights and freedom of worship," Albert Polanski, a spokesman for the Jehovah's Witnesses, said by telephone.
But he said their victory would be hollow for organisations which had smaller congregations and could not receive the status of a "centralised organisation" by being represented in three of Russia's 89 regions.
"There are over 10,000 congregations in Russia that don't have registration, I assume there are quite a few which would not qualify as a centralised group," he said.
The Jehovah's Witnesses have been fighting the law after a Moscow court tried to ban them in the Russian capital, accusing them of breaking up families and preaching intolerance.
The group said the law, which gives courts the right to disband groups they find guilty of inciting hatred or intolerant behaviour, was a throwback to Soviet-style repression.
Polanski said the group would review the Constitutional Court's 18-page decision and then decide whether to take their criticism of the law to the European Court.
"If religions cannot register, they can't rent places for worship, they cannot bring any literature into Russia or receive it. All they can do is meet in small groups and worship," Polanski said. "As you can imagine this is very limited."
Polanski said there were some 100,000 active members of the Jehovah's Witnesses in Russia, including about 10,000 in Moscow, adding that other religious groups like the Roman Catholic Jesuits are not so big and could face registration problems.
"The Jesuits are trying to register now, but there are few of them," he said. "If you don't have legal strength and lawyers some poor religious groups will have difficulties working here."
Copyright 1999 Reuters. All rights reserved.
COURT: RESTRICTIONS IN FEDERAL LAW ON RELIGION LEGAL
MOSCOW, November 23 (Itar-Tass) - Russia's Constitutional Court ruled on Tuesday that the restrictions in the Federal law on religion against the organizations set up less than 15 years ago do not contradict the Constitution.
The Court's ruling explained however, that the religious associations which had been set up before the adoption of the law or are part of a centralized organization, are treated as full- fledged legal entities.
They do not need to provide evidence for a minimal 15-year term of operating in Russia, according to the ruling.
The Constitutional court looked into the case after a complaint was lodged by Jehovah's witnesses' organization of the Jaroslavl community and another religious organization from Abakan.
Both religious organizations have claimed that the law in its present form does not guarantee them equal conditions with representatives of the so-called traditional religious confessions, such as Orthodoxy, Buddhism, Islam and Judaism.
Under the existing law, representatives of all non- traditional religions are authorised to act as Juridical entities 15 years after these organizations are founded and re-registered every year since, and only afterwards, they are entitled to circulate religious literature, conduct religious ceremonies in public places and invite foreign preachers.
The law, finally enacted in 1997, was passed after it had been discussed by the parliament twice. An initial draft law had been turned down by the president who ruled that in matters related to the freedom of conscious Russia should take into account international standards.
According to the Tuesday ruling, a lawmaker should take into the account the historically developed multi-confessional setup, and guarantee the persons' and citizens rights and freedoms in line with principles and norms of the international law.
At the same time, the Court emphasized that a law in a democratic society can envision certain restrictions, if it is necessary in the interests of public quiet, the maintaining of public order, health and morals, as well as for the protection of rights and freedoms of other persons.
The state has the right to envision certain barriers preventing a religious organization from receiving status automatically. It has the right to prevent the legalization of the sects violating human rights and committing illegal and criminal actions, and impede the missionary activity (including that in connection with the problem of proselytism).
In the opinion of court officials, registration of religious organizations is therefore necessary.
However, re-registration of religious organizations which had been founded before the present federal law became effective, does not require the documents confirming their existence on the relevant territory for at least 15 years. The same applies to local religious organizations which are part of a centralized religious organization.
Such religious associations do not have to re-register every year until they make the 15-year qualification. They cannot be limited in their legal capacity with which religious organizations are vested according to the federal law and the Constitution, the Court said.
From Voice of America, 23 November 1999
INTRO: Russia's Constitutional Court has struck down part of a controversial 1997 religion law. Correspondent Eve Conant in Moscow reports the court eased a provision that requires religious groups to prove they operated in the country before the collapse of the Soviet Union.
Western religious groups call the court's announcement a minor victory for freedom of religion in Russia. The court ruled that religious organizations registered in Russia before the 1997 law took effect would be exempt from the 15-year waiting period.
But religious analyst and director of the Keston Institute, Lawrence Uzzell, says the court's ruling proves Russia is still opposed to religious freedom.
" I would say it is a step in the right direction, but it is not enough. Clearly, religious discrimination still exists in this country."
Tuesday's court decision waives the 15-year registration rule, but Mr. Uzzell says that still leaves other, smaller organizations in trouble.
"It will help those religious groups which have good contacts in the west, which can afford to hire lawyers and which are able to go through the registration process. But groups like the Independent Baptists who refuse to get registration -- it will leave them without the right, for example, to engage in any publishing activities which is a violation of the Russian constitution."
Russia's parliament passed the 1997 law in reaction to the growing numbers of foreign religious groups and missionaries who traveled to Russia and formed congregations after the fall of the Soviet Union. The law made it difficult for smaller churches and denominations to register, rent places for worship, or distribute literature.
Russian Orthodox Church leaders support the law, saying it helps prevent what they describe as dangerous religious cults from gaining a foothold in Russia.
Constitutional Court Judge Valery Zorkin defends the law, saying Russia has a right to limit illegal religious activity on its territory.
He says --" the state has the right to block those sects that are carrying out illegal activities, and are violating freedom and human rights."
The Jehovah's Witnesses had been fighting the 15-year clause.
The group said it made worship nearly impossible since almost no foreign
religious groups were able to operate in the Soviet Union before its collapse
in 1991.
(posted 23 November 1999)
On Tuesday, November 23, 1999, Russia’s Constitutional Court will release its decision on the constitutionality of a clause of Russia’s 1997 law on religion. The clause in question denies registration to religious groups that cannot document their presence in Russia for at least 15 years.
Fifteen years ago, Russia was under Soviet rule, and the majority of Russia’s religious faiths cannot provide official documentation of their existence before the 1990 law on religion was passed. Jehovah’s Witnesses, for example, have been present in Russia for more than a century. Under the new law, religions without registration will be severely restricted.
This challenge to the 1997 law was brought by the Yaroslavl Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Glorification Pentecostal Church in Khakassia. The Yaroslavl Congregation has been in existence since 1967 but was registered only in 1992. After passage of the 1997 law, the public prosecutor in Yaroslavl declared some of the congregation’s activities illegal, primarily because they did not have an official document confirming their existence in Yaroslavl for at least 15 years.
Jehovah’s Witnesses chose to challenge the 15-year rule because of the discriminatory restrictions placed on religions that did not meet this qualification, said A. Y. Leontyev, an attorney working with the case. "Freedom to practice one’s religion is an inherent right," said Leontyev. "The restriction of legitimate religious practices created by arbitrary rules, such as the 15-year clause, violates freedom of religion guaranteed by the Russian Constitution, the European Convention of Human Rights, and numerous other treaties and agreements."
This case did not address other controversial aspects of the 1997 law on religion, which include distinguishing between "religious organizations" and "religious groups" with denial of basic rights to the latter. O Mironov, human rights representative of the President of the Russian Federation, said that "the law establishes norms that in fact lead to practical discrimination of different confessions."
According to the Deputy Chairman of the Commission of Religious Associations
of the Russian Federation, at least 12,000 of the more than 17,000 religious
organizations in Russia are threatened with liquidation by judicial order.
The national office of Jehovah’s Witnesses received reregistration
on April 29, 1999, as a religious organization with more than 50 years
in Russia. Jehovah’s Witnesses have been present in Russia for more than
a century and are legally registered in 158 countries.
(posted 22 November 1999)
On the eve of the feast of the Protection of the Most Holy Mother of God, 13 October, the rector of the church of Saints Cosmas and Damian the Unmercenaries in Shubin, Father Alexander Borisov, celebrated his sixtieth birthday. In the same year he celebrated the tenth anniversary of ministry as a priest.
His labors were noted by Dean Oleg Klemyshev when he relayed birthday greetings from the most holy patriarch of Moscow and all-Rus, Alexis II, and vested him with the medal of Blessed Prince Daniel of Moscow which the patriarch had awarded Fr Alexander.
The path of Fr Alexander Borisov into the church was rather extraordinary. Originally the future priest received a secular education: he graduated from the biology-chemistry faculty of the Lenin Moscow State Pedagogical Institute and worked in the Institute of General Genetics and the Institute of Biology of the Academy of Sciences of USSR. He defended his dissertation in genetics. He worked along with the famous scholar geneticist Timofeev-Resovsky. However in 1972 the very successful scholar decided to leave science and devote himself to clerical ministry. That same year Alexander Borisov entered the fourth year of Moscow Ecclesiastical Seminary and in 1973 he finished it successfully. After this he was ordained a deacon.
From 1973 to 1978 Alexander Borisov studied in the Moscow Ecclesiastical Academy, and after graduation he defended a kandidat's dissertation on the topic "Doctrine of man in liturgical books."
In 1990 he finally was ordained a priest. This same year the elder friend and teacher of Fr Alexander Borisov, Fr Alexander Men, died tragically. The greater part of the flock of the famous preacher and theologian transferred to Borisov's parish. Soon he was elected president of the Russian Bible Society. Then Fr Alexander Borisov joined the Commission on Charity of the presidency of the Russian federation.
His active preaching of the gospel, his stand for open Christianity, and his distinct civil position made Fr Alexander Borisov's image rather noteworthy in Moscow circles.
In 1991, when the church of Saints Cosmas and Damian the Unmercenaries in Shubin was returned to RPTs, the most holy patriarch approved Fr Alexander Borisov's becoming its rector.
Today the parish contains more than 3,000 persons. Besides the usual divine services, extensive charitable work is conducted here. The parish takes care of two hospitals, the Republican Children's Clinical Hospital and the Institute of Prosthesis, as well as several children's homes. Three times a week around 300 homeless persons are fed at the church. Each day free meals are distributed to the elderly and invalids who live in homes in the district. A group of charity works to provide help to refugees, families with many children, and retirees. Parishioners work with prisoners (they write letters, send books, linen, and items of primary necessity). From the very first day a Sunday school was opened in the church and work is conducted with the youth and young adults. For adults the parishioners organize discussions for preparation for baptism (and the baptism is conducted free of charge). Groups gather to study holy scripture, church and Christian songs, and icon painting. (tr. by PDS)
(posted 13 November 1999)
Fr Georgy Kochetkov and his parishioners have been called to sincere repentance before the plenitude of Russian Orthodoxy
by Fr. Mikhail Dubovitsky, a clergyman of the church of the "Life-bearing
Spring" Mother of God Icon in Tsaritsyn
Nezavisimaia
gazeta--religii, 10 November 1999
More than two years have passed since the incident that happened in the Moscow church of the Dormition of the Mother of God in Pechatniki on 29 June 1997, when acolytes under the direction of their rector, Fr Georgy Kochetkov, seized the second priest of the church, locked him in the altar area, forcibly tore off his liturgical vestments and priest's cross, called a psychiatric ambulance, slandered him, and took him to the psychiatric hospital by force (see NG, 26 July 1997 and 4 Oct. 1997).
All of this happened to me. I was assigned to that church by decree of the most holy patriarch from the church of Saint Nicholas in Klenniki, which I had served as deacon for eight months.
The events of 29 June 1997 were reviewed by order of the patriarch at sessions of a specially created commission consisting of the most authoritative clergy of the Moscow patriarchate, including specialists in canon law headed by Bishop Alexis Frolov of Orekhovo-Zuevsky. The commission worked scrupulously, hearing in the course of three months testimony from both Fr Kochetkov and his parishioners, as well as my own. Its work cited irrefutable documents received from the police, which established the fact of my being beaten, and also written testimony of physicians of the psychiatric hospital, which confirmed not only the bodily injuries which I had on my arrival but also the fact of my psychological health. Besides this, the commission had access to videotape taken by the "Kochetkovites" themselves of the events of this "bloody Sunday."
The most holy patriarch, who thoroughly acquainted himself with the materials, issued a decision which he thought just and necessary: Fr Georgy Kochetkov was banned from ministry and twelve of his close associates who participated in the plot, violence, and insult were barred from the holy church and from communion until they repented. This is how Bishop Alexis, chairman of the commission, described this: "The most holy patriarch showed mercy to them, following in this matter the principle of church mercy and not strictness. The door to repentance stands open for all of them. How long it will be open we do not know, but one thing is sure: in the case of continuation of substantial opposition it is possible that the principle of strictness will be applied" ("Pravoslavnaia Moskva," no. 29-30, 1997).
However instead of this repentance that is desirable for the whole Russian church, throughout these two years Fr Georgy Kochetkov himself and his associates have continued to insist publicly that they are right and to deceive the public.
I have been watching for more than two years. My pastoral concern and anxiety in this time have focused constantly on the dire condition of unrepentant people who have committed church crimes. The article by Dmitry Gorin "The silence of the pastors," which was published in NG-religii (13 October 1999) and simultaneously in "Pravoslavnaia obshchina, has forced me to respond in accordance with the words of holy scripture: "a time to be silent and a time to speak" (Ec 3.7).
Thus, Gorin writes: "The overwhelming majority of clergy know and understand that the whole conflict in Dormition church in 1997 was a provocation from start to finish." In response I would like to mention that, on the contrary, immediately after the outrage against me on the part of Fr Georgy and his acolytes, three bishops as well as 205 rectors of Moscow churches and heads of monasteries wrote a letter to the patriarch in which Kochetkov's parish was called a "totalitarian sect," and his conduct an "insulting, arrogant, and cruel evil," which "will flow like an unrestrained flood across the face of the Russian land if it is not stopped by rapid response of authorities" ("Shkola tserkovnoi smuty," M., 1997).
Besides this, Gorin complains that the punishments assessed by the church are "canonically dubious," although he never will be able to provide proof of their doubtfulness. Some of the canonical punishments were connected with the violence against me on orders from Fr Kochetkov. But it is this point that Fr Kochetkov most of all denies: "Nobody laid a finger on him," (BBC, 12 July 1997), "There was not a single reliable witness who would say that there was violence" (Russkaia mysl, 23 July 1998).
I am such a witness. Before the cross and the gospel, I can affirm the reliability of the decree and its canonical validity. Fr Kochetkov and his acolytes restrained me forcibly in the altar area, ripped off my liturgical vestments and cross, twisted my arms, punched me, and pulled my hair. They have borne false witness before "outsiders" regarding my psychiatric illness. It is clear; the "formation of a mob," "conspiracy," "plot against their fellow clergymen," as well as "beating," of which the canons speak, all are noted in the decree. It is these things that they must repent of.
Gorin does not comprehend why nevertheless the patriarch does not remove the church punishments from Fr Kochektov and his acolytes, since they "already for two years in a row have been asking forgiveness of all who consider themselves to have been offended somehow, but they have not received this forgiveness," and " the other side (Dubovitsky and the like) do not want to be reconciled and they have failed thereby to fulfill their Christian obligation." This does not correspond with reality.
In keeping with holy scripture and tradition, any priest teaches that repentance consists of recognition of one's sins, correction, and a change of life and the way of thinking associated with it. All of the statements from Fr Georgy and the activists of his parish of the past two years testify to the opposite. They must repent before Mother Church because their conduct served as a cause of the violation of church peace as well as a deception of people. But instead of this Fr Georgy affirms: "Our church . . . has lost adequate self-awareness. It has begun living by inertia, has stopped discerning the spirits, and has lost moderation in its judgments" (Pravoslavnaia obshchina, no. 46, p. 15).
They must repent before the most holy patriarch for their failure to fulfill a single point of his orders and decree, but instead of this Fr Kochetkov and his followers constantly permit themselves to insult ruling bishops. Here is what Fr Kochetkov said in an interview: "I talk, for example, with the Georgian patriarch and I receive nothing by happiness from this. But when I talk with our patriarch, I am left with a sad impression" (Russkaia mysl, 13 July 1998).
They must ask forgiveness of Fr Oleg Klemyshev, currently the rector of the church of the Dormition, because when they left they took with them the churchware that belongs to the church; but instead of this they have begun damaging his good name. For example, Fr Kochetkov called him the incarnation of "the aggression of evil" and called the parish to pray for him as an "enemy" (ibid., p. 30-31).
They must ask forgiveness of Archbishop Arseny, Archpriest Vladimir Divakov, and Archimandrite Tikhon, whom they constantly revile in the media, and Fr. Kochetkov must repent before the monastic priest Nikandr, whom he publicly and in a report to the patriarch slandered as a drunkard.
On the basis of the patriarch's decree, I also desire genuine reconciliation. But in all this time nobody, other than two acolytes who were excommunicated, has met with me, nobody has written a letter of apology to me, and nobody has renounced the slanderous reports in the mass media. Thus is it sad to hear Gorin's claim that I "do not want to be reconciled and that I have not fulfilled thereby my Christian obligation." As regards the acolytes German Chuev and Alexander Baikov, who came to see me, in the presence of Archpriest Georgy Breev, the rector of the church where I serve, they conducted themselves defiantly, refusing to acknowledge their guilt and denying the obvious facts, of which I immediately submitted a report to the patriarch, where I wrote that I long ago had sincerely forgiven those who mistreated me, I pray for them and do not retain my anger against them, but I do not want to be a participant in the hypocrisy and lies which infuse their deeds and words. Besides, they still have not returned my priest's cross which they tore off of me.
It is entirely clear that the incidents which have involved me transcend the bounds of my personal problems; they have brought offense to the church, the patriarch, the clergy, and to the whole church people. Removal of the discipline without repentance will be interpreted as damage to the sacred concepts of forgiveness and reconciliation. It will not end the conflict and church peace will not be restored. It will evoke new division and dissatisfaction and it will subject God's truth to abasement.
The phony repentance of Fr Kochetkov and his twelve associates, as the very facts testify in this regard, are only the next step so that after they receive forgiveness they can continue their anti-church activity, maintain their own innocence, and assert their victory over the Russian church. After all, as Gorin asserts, "once he (the patriarch) permits Fr Georgy to serve, this can be taken . . . as acknowledgment of his . . . unfairness."
I have forgiven those who offended me. Have they acknowledged their sin before the church if they are still proclaiming my guilt even to the patriarch's face?
Along with the entire plenitude of the Russian church, I desire that all who are subject to discipline would drink up sincere repentance like a life-giving juice and not act like dried branches which in the course of time will be cut off and cast into the fire and burned. (tr. by PDS)
(posted 13 November 1999)
The Russian Orthodox church does not participate in the political struggle, but it continues to issue evaluations of what is happening in the country.
By Archpriest Vsevolod Chaplin
Nezavisimaia
gazeta--religii, 10 November 1999
The approach of parliamentary elections has evoked a high level of interest in the social position of the largest Russian religious organizations, principally the Russian Orthodox church. There also has been much speculation arising from political structures and various groups of analysts and reporters who are acting in the interests of campaign associations. At the same time it often happens that what is wished for (or not wished for) is seen as reality and the actual position of the church hierarchy is, intentionally or not, ignored.
In order to understand the essence of the relationship of the church to the upcoming elections it is necessary first to recall the decisions of the last two bishops' councils that carefully studied the question of the political contest. The council of 1994, which approved the pertinent decision of the Holy Synod of 1993, warned clergymen to refrain from advancing their own candidacies in any elections to representative bodies. The bishops stressed the "impossibility for the plenitude of the church to support any political parties, movements, unions, blocks, and similar organizations, or any of their individual leaders, especially during an election campaign." At the same time it was considered that nonpolitical cooperation with such organizations was permissible, as was also membership of laity in them and even the creation of such associations by Orthodox believers themselves.
The bishops' council of 1997 welcomed "dialogue and contacts by the church with political organizations in cases where such contacts do not have the character of political support." The council, on the other hand, considered participation of bishops and clergy in election campaigns and their membership in political associations to be impermissible. Such associations, created by Orthodox laity, were called to conduct responsible consultation with the church hierarchy. However the council decreed that these "organizations, as participants in the political process, cannot have the blessing of the church hierarchy and act in the name of the church."
But what is being said does not mean that the church cannot and should not have contact or cooperation with political organizations. A dialogue in the course of which the church's position on social questions is brought to the politicians goes on constantly. At the same time those observers are incorrect who, when they learned of separate meetings and contacts, hastened to announce the selection of a "church party" by the hierarchy. In recent months representatives of the church have attended many congresses, conferences, and other events of various political associations. The basic reason for the presence of church observers was not "secret sympathy" but the simple fact of an invitation that signified the readiness of the politicians for dialogue. Working relations with parties and blocks belonging to widely different parts of the political spectrum, from communists to rightist liberals, monarchists to advocates of a parliamentary republic, have been maintained. However the hierarchy and authorized church institutions do not act as the initiators of contacts with politicians; the church does not intend to attach itself to anyone.
A great number of associations that have an Orthodox (Christian) self-identity participate in the electoral process. Quite satisfactory consultations have been conducted with a majority of them. This includes the Union of Orthodox Citizens, which has connections with lay candidates who are running on various lists, the "For Faith and Fatherland" movement, the Russian Christian Democratic party, which is a member of the "Unity" block," and the All-Russian Christian Union, which is close to Yabloko. One would like to hope for a more supportive dialogue with the Union of Christian Democrats of Russia which was a co-founder of the "Fatherland-All Russia" block. Finally, among candidates in single-member districts there already are, or will be in the near future, the names of people who have gained sufficient authority within the church. But these above-named associations and persons, who belong to various sections of the political palette, also cannot count on the exclusive support of the hierarchy in accordance with the letter and spirit of the councils' rulings.
Naturally, the neutral position the church occupies in the period of the electoral campaign cannot satisfy the ambition of some politicians. This has often led and probably will again frequently lead to attempts to put pressure on the hierarchy, or to bribe or intimidate them, or even to use blatant tactics like putting out posters with a picture of a priest blessing one or another political leader (which is the performance of a pastoral duty with regard to any person who asks for a blessing and has no significance for the political position of the priest).
When attempts to influence the church with a "carrot or stick" turn out to be unsuccessful, a "clearing of the ground" begins. The presence of a force that has the confidence of society but which is not subject to the usual rules of the political game awakens the temptation to work for a reduction of its influence. It is just this, in my personal opinion, that produced the recent campaigns in the press describing in dark terms the economic activity of enterprises and public organizations with which the church has close cooperation, for example the Russian Charity Fund for Reconciliation and Accord. It does not matter that the alleged violations of law in this activity were not proven. There was an attempt to establish a false stereotype in public opinion: the church should not cooperate with organizations engaged in production and business; it cannot have any form of independent income. From here it is not far to the next conclusion: the church organism should live exclusively on contributions from certain structures since "who pays the piper calls the tune."
The church's abstention from participation in the political struggle should not entail its self-isolation from what is happening in the country and the world. In recent years the hierarchy has often spoken out before the government and the nation on such questions as the social and economic situation in Russia and CIS, international relations, the level of public morality, and the development of general European and global processes. In the context of the upcoming election of deputies for the State Duma, the most holy patriarch of Moscow and all-Rus, Alexis, has called for the conduct of honest elections, a calming of political passions, and concern for peace and harmony. The church also is firmly prepared to promote a dialogue of public forces and their leaders in the interest of uniting its forces in service to the fatherland and the nation. One of the forums of such a dialogue could be the World Russian National Sobor.
Really the social position of the church has two essential differences from the position of politicians. First, the church does not strive to gain or hold onto power, which is characteristic of any government or opposition. It is this circumstance that gives it the possibility to evaluate the struggle between them impartially. Second and most important, a great difference exists between political plans, which unfortunately in present day Russia are practically confined to the life priorities of a single generation, and the view of the church, which thinks in categories of millennia, beyond national and temporal boundaries. In this context, for a church consciousness, the upcoming elections are not a matter of life and death but more of an historical episode that has extremely limited significance for the spiritual fortune of Russia and humanity. This is why politicians, the majority of whom are far from prayer, church involvement, and participation in the sacramental life of the church, are hardly able to understand fully its view of "this world" with its bitter, but furious and largely irrational struggle.
About the writer: Archpriest Vsevolod Chaplin is the secretary for relations between church and society of the Department of External Church Relations of the Moscow patriarchate. (tr. By PDS)
(posted 13 November 1999)
[received from Office of Communication, Russian Orthodox Church Department for External Church Relations]
The Orthodox Christians cannot reconcile themselves with sin and lawlessness. What happened and is still happening in Chechnya, namely, hijacking of hundreds of people, including Orthodox and Muslim clergy, murder, torture, oppression of innocent civilians and rampant crime, cannot be left without a response. Attempts to spread the wave of terrorism to neighbouring regions and all Russia also need to be firmly opposed.
In view of this, the Russian Orthodox Church supports the anti-terrorist aims that the Russian state authorities have set before the army and the law-enforcement. It has become evident today that the political settlement of the Chechen problem is impossible without restoration of law and order. The hand of murderers, perpetrators of violence and terrorists should be stopped.
At the same time, I consider it extremely important to ensure that civilians - first of all those who have proved their non-participation in the lawlessness perpetrated and refused unequivocally to support the bandits and terrorists - should not become victims in the struggle with the criminals. This demands that the army should show an attitude of high responsibility in choosing the means and ways of conducting their military operations and that all the authorities should pay exceptional attention to the needs of the civilians, especially the forced re-settlers who have found themselves on the verge of survival. It is also necessary to help society know exactly and for certain what is going on in the Northern Caucasus, so that the spread of rumors, fear and ethnic and religious animosity may be excluded.
Sympathizing with the pastors and faithful of our Church who live in the North Caucasus, we call upon them to withstand all the trials with courage and patience. While fully identifying with our much-suffered flock, we make a special appeal to the Muslims both in the armed conflict region and throughout Russia. For centuries we have lived and will always live together. Let no one divide us today, for we have a common goal, which is the spiritual revival of our country and the building of its life according to age-old moral norms.
The people of Chechnya have the right to choose their destiny. After peace and tranquillity is established in the republic, the federal authorities should enter into dialogue with its elders, religious leaders and elected representatives in order to prevent any new aggravation of the crisis and to reach mutually acceptable decisions. In the meantime, everything should be done to stop the suffering of the civilians, to help the sick, the wounded and the hungry and those who have left their homes and lost shelter.
To achieve this our church is prepared to join efforts with the state
authorities, various public organizations, non-Orthodox Christians and
Muslims in Russia, Europe and throughout the world. May our common efforts
help heal the physical and spiritual wounds of those who suffer. Let us
work together for reconciliation and pray for peace so that the Lord may
return it to the divided and embittered people.
ALEXY II PATRIARCH OF MOSCOW AND ALL RUSSIA
November 12, 1999
(posted 12 November 1999)
by Konstantin Krylov
(Moscow, Nov. 11)
On Nov. 5, 1999 the final hearing took place in the St. Petersburg City
Court of two separate suits
to liquidate the Collegiate Association for Research of the Principle
(CARP), a public student organization founded by Rev. Sun Myung Moon. Judge
Svetlana Masolova rejected the claims of the City Prosecutor and the St.
Petersburg Justice Department.
Cases against CARP
have been going on in St. Petersburg for more than four years. City authorities
have wanted to shut down this organization in order to demonstrate their
determination to fight against non-traditional beliefs in Russia.
CARP was officially
registered by the Justice Department of St. Petersburg in December 1991.
When members of CARP attempted to register a branch of the Unification
Church in St. Petersburg in November 1994, it attracted the unwelcome attention
of Justice Department officials and anti-cult activists. The Justice Department
immediately began an investigation into CARP activities and sent an official
warning, threatening to close CARP, which it accused of violating its charter
by conducting religious activities. Although CARP did not violate its own
charter or Russian law concerning activities by public organizations, the
CARP charter does claim the study of Unification Principle as one of its
activities, a point that was not disputed by the Justice Department when
CARP was first registered in 1991.
At the same
time, the Justice Department rejected the attempts to register a local
branch of the Unification Church, stating that it did not consider it a
religion, this in spite of the fact that the Unification Church had already
been registered as a religious organization on the national level by the
Russian Federation Ministry of Justice in May 1992.
In July 1995 two anti-cult
groups, the Committee for the Protection of Family and Personality and
the Interregional Committee for Salvation from Totalitarian Sects, simultaneously
launched suits at the Dzerzhinsky District Court of St. Petersburg, seeking
to liquidate CARP and demanding compensation for supposed moral damage.
CARP was accused of "destroying the genetic fund of Russia," turning its
members into "zombies" and hindering their intellectual development. They
demanded a total of 80 billion rubles (approximately $13m in 1995), which
they claimed was necessary in order to establish rehabilitation centers
providing psychiatric aid to the "victims." The head of the Interregional
Committee for Salvation from Totalitarian Sects, Ninel Russkikh, for example,
demanded that her 22-year-old daughter, a CARP member who is also a Unification
Church member, be forcibly confined to a mental institution for 16 months.
In the course of the
hearings the court ordered a psychiatric evaluation of the CARP members
whose parents were bringing the suits. The evaluation found the CARP members
to be mentally healthy and competent. In addition, criminal experts who
studied CARP and Unification Church literature found nothing unlawful in
their teachings or activities.
In March 1996 one of the two anti-cult committees, the Committee for
the Protection of Family and Personality, withdrew its suit. On Nov. 19,
1998, the judge of the Dzerzhinsky District Court suddenly "remembered"
about correct procedure and, after three-and-a-half years, concluded that
the case brought by the anti-cultists had been mistakenly accepted by the
court, thereby dismissing the case of the Interregional Committee for Protection
from Totalitarian Sects. The judge ruled that neither of the anti-cult
organizations had, according to Russian law, a legal right to demand the
liquidation of a public organization, although this very point had been
repeatedly raised by CARP lawyers Galina Krylova and Helen Khudiakova since
the case first started in 1995. An important factor in helping the judge
to "remember" this "mistake" was the fact that CARP lawyers had discovered
the source of funding for the "socially beneficial" anti-cult activities.
Documentary evidence was presented proving that the lawsuits of the parents
were actually paid for by a special budget from the St. Petersburg City
Hall. In other words, the St. Petersburg City Hall was financing activities
that could have resulted in the forcible commitment to mental institutions
of adults whose beliefs differed from their parents.
The decision by the
Dzerzhinsky District Court to recognize the "mistake" and dismiss the case
was not welcomed by the authorities. In February 1999 the Interregional
Committee for Salvation from Totalitarian Sects was successful in its appeal
against the ruling of the lower court. However, on July 21, 1999, four
years to the day after the initial hearing, the anti-cult committee officially
withdrew its suit. But the chairman of the committee, Ninel Russkikh, and
the vice chairman, Nikolai Babkin, submitted their own personal suits with
the same claims. It must be noted that in May 1998 these same anti-cultists
lost an almost identical case against the Unification Church of Russia
in Moscow.
When it became clear,
in the autumn of 1998, that the anti-cultists' efforts had not met with
the expected success, the St. Petersburg City Court scheduled a hearing
on the City Prosecutor's case demanding the liquidation of CARP on the
absurd charge that it conducted religious activities in 1994 and 1995.
(The warning that the Justice Department sent to CARP about suspected religious
activity in 1994-1995 was disavowed by the Justice Department in May 1999
due to a lack of evidence.)
We again see Mrs.
Russkikh and Mr. Babkin as star witnesses for the prosecution. When the
judge of this new case recognized the weakness in the Prosecutor's case,
the hearing was postponed for about a year.
The case resumed in
October 1999 when the Justice Department of St. Petersburg joined the City
Prosecutor with its own claims to liquidate CARP, on the grounds that CARP
had failed to re-register by the July 1, 1999 deadline, as stipulated by
the new law "On public organizations."
This new suit of the
Justice Department was patently absurd. Firstly, the Justice Department
had more than once rejected CARP's attempts to re-register on the grounds
that there was no final decision on the City Prosecutor's case. Secondly,
the State Duma approved the extension of the period for re-registration
of all public organizations from the previous deadline of July 1, 1999
to July 1, 2000.
Over several years
the prosecutor's office had been trying to bring a criminal case against
CARP and in 1996, with the support of the Justice Department, a criminal
case began, only to end in May 1999 when the Prosecutor agreed that CARP
did not violate the law.
The absence of any
sustainable legal arguments forced the City Prosecutor and the Justice
Department to openly display their ideological bias and to forgo even the
pretense of following legal norms. As a result, on Nov. 5, 1999 the City
Court of St. Petersburg rejected the City Prosecutor's and Justice Department's
suits to liquidate CARP and, at the same time, accused the city Justice
Department of acting illegally when it rejected the attempt by CARP to
re-register.
This decision finally
vindicated CARP, despite the attacks and opposition from the authorities.
This victory also provides a glimmer of hope for the establishment of an
independent judiciary in Russia.
CARP STUDENTS WIN UNEXPECTED LEGAL VICTORY
by Jeff Tallakson
CESNUR, 9 November 1999
The student organization "CARP" won a crucial court case in St. Petersburg, Russia on November 5, 1999. No one expected they would win. The prosecutor wanted to close down ("liquidate") CARP for doing religious activities. (CARP stands for Collegiate Association for Research of Principles and is a student organization within the broad movement for social change founded by Rev Sun Myung Moon.) The students had been disputing these charges in a long series of court battles beginning in 1995. During the 4 years of trials CARP students made 3 formal requests to dismiss the judges for prejudice and violation of their rights under Russian law. Recently the Justice Department added their power to the prosecutor by filing a supplementary, nearly identical lawsuit. The students were fighting two lawsuits at once. (Actually they had 5 separate cases winding through the St. Petersburg city court system).
Unbelievably CARP's lawyers were banned from the final hearings. Next the students themselves were excluded (either because they were declared to be witnesses or because of their connection to Unification Church) and were not allowed to attend the final arguments delivered against them. However throughout the proceedings representatives of a hate group against new religious movements were accorded courtesy as observers. On the last day the chief judge yelled at and berated the 5 CARP witnesses for not being able to defend against the arguments they had not been allowed to hear the day before. Three students and two of their parents conducted themselves with courage and dignity under grueling and humiliating questioning lasting up to 2 hours for each witness. In Russia the judge also questions witnesses in a prosecutorial manner. But it is not common for a judge to do this until 9:30 p.m. The panel of three women judges was so clearly prejudiced that the students were resigned that their only recourse was to appeal the violations of the law and their rights to the Supreme Court in Moscow. On Friday, November 5, 1999, all gathered for the verdict. First the prosecutor had yet again the chance to summarize. There was no lawyer present for the defendants. The judges deliberated for two hours. All present knew the verdict before hand. The prosecutor and the representative of the Justice Department were relieved that after four years of litigating and persecuting, they finally had the liquidation of the student organization within their grasp. The representatives of the anti-cult hate groups were savoring their victory in advance. They were the ones who began the court cases; in misguided hysteria they brought the complaints and continual fervor to spur the prosecutors to harass the student movement to extinction even if the laws had to be broken Soviet-style to do it. The CARP leaders were already planning their final appeal and their press releases to human rights groups worldwide.
The only people who had not given into this fate were thousands of Unificationists throughout Russia and the CIS who had united in heart dedicating special times to prayer, fasting and vigils. Their desperation arose out of their understanding that prosecutors throughout Russia had been anxiously awaiting this decision as the precedent to follow their own agendas to eliminate the ever expanding activities of the Unification Movement in the former Communist nations. If CARP students in St. Petersburg lost, then all lost. The movement might be forced underground. The judges filed back in. All stood for the reading. Chief Judge Svetlana Masolova read her verdict. "The two suits brought by the Justice Department and by the public prosecutor to liquidate CARP because CARP allegedly violated the laws of Russia and their own by-laws . . . are dismissed." The room was totally still. Everyone was stunned--the prosecuting attorneys, the enemies of CARP, and the three CARP leaders. People could not believe their ears. The Judge let loose a slim smile at the scene before her. Unification Church Public Relations director Kostya Krylov and CARP legal assistant Natasha Yankus looked at each other in bewildered amazement. The Judges exited the courtroom.
CARP's representative, Marisha Chernyh, followed Judge Masolova into her chambers.
"Excuse me, please. What is the meaning of the verdict?" Judge Masolova replied, "Oh, I am sorry. Did I read in an incomprehensible manner?" Marisha: "No, your reading was fine, but I do not understand its meaning for CARP." Another Judge spoke up, "They cannot understand their own happiness." Judge Masolova: "It means you won. CARP is not liquidated." (...)
- received from Human Rights Without Frontiers, November 10, 1999 (courtesy of Ray Prigodich)
(posted 12 November 1999)
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/.