Moscow – Another case was opened against the Jehovah’s Witnesses in Russia, accused of “extremist activity”. This time the community of Orenburg region (southeast of European Russia to the border with Kazakhstan) is being targeted by the local investigative committee. Investigators are inquiring about the actions of some residents belonging to the Jehovah’s Witnesses, in the area since 1994. According to Vladimir Markin, the investigating committee, the community has 3 thousand followers. “Between June 1994 and April 2012 – Markin said – the members of this religious community have held, in Orenburg and in the region, mass events such as public sermons, which contained statements that incite hatred and judged human dignity on the basis of religious affiliation”.

Among the religious minorities in the former USSR, the JWs are among the most victimized. Present with about 200 thousand faithful scattered throughout the Federation, they are accused of sectarianism, “religious extremism”, “incitement to social isolation” and behaviors that undermine the harmony of society.

The Russian authorities disapprove of some of the practices of the faithful such as conscientious objection to military service, the refusal to use weapons, the refusal of blood transfusions and the demand for the total devotion of its adherents to the community.

Article by Nina Achmatova on www.asianews.it

In a May 3 response to the lawsuit filed by resident Robert Walles, the town argues Walles essentially has no legal leg to stand on.

Walles filed suit against the town after the Zoning Board reversed its original decision of denying a request to build a Jehovah’s Witnesses Kingdom Hall at 63 Wire Road.

According to the response from the town, with the statement prepared by attorney Matthew Upton on behalf of Merrimack, the municipality denies that the Zoning Board’s reversal for Kingdom Hall was made in light of the lawsuit filed by the congregation.

The response also asks that the court deny Walles’ appeal.

“The Town of Merrimack denies that it has discriminated against the Petitioner or anyone else with regard to this matter or the underlying request for the grant of the special exception and the appeals/requests for rehearing that followed,” the town’s response reads.

“Any and all allegations contained in the Petitioner’s Appeal that are inconsistent with the above facts and/or assertions are specifically denied.”

Walles reiterated that this isn’t an action against the Jehovah’s Witnesses.

“I have been adamantly saying this is between me and my Zoning Board. … It’s not anything to do with the church,” he said. “The fact is that these people are trying to put in a nonresidential property; whether it’s a church, a factory, I don’t care.

“My issue is with the Zoning Board. Initially, they said ‘No,’ (the Jehovah’s Witnesses) sued and they said, ‘Yes.’ That is just the simple truth of it. I think the relevant facts will come out during the case, but it just smells wrong.”

Walles lives across the street from the project site, which was originally rejected by the Zoning Board in September 2010.

Members raised concerns regarding traffic and lighting, among others, in their decision.

In November 2011, after the congregation brought the first lawsuit against the town, the Zoning Board opted to approve the Kingdom Hall proposal through a special exception.

This is the crux of Walles’ lawsuit against the town, as he accuses the Zoning Board of reversing its original ruling because of the legal action the Jehovah’s Witnesses lodged against Merrimack. He filed the litigation paperwork after the Zoning Board denied his request for a rehearing on the project in January.

“I contend that the members of the zoning board, during non-public and illegal meetings … were told to grant the Special Exception to mitigate the potential costs of defending the pending lawsuit,” Walles wrote in the lawsuit, filed in February in Hillsborough County Superior Court in Nashua.

“This vote was made under duress and therefor should be overturned.”

Upton couldn’t be reached for comment Friday.

According to Ron Hansen, of the local Jehovah’s Witnesses congregation, no further work has been conducted on the site because members are awaiting the outcome of the suit.

The congregation is ready to break ground; Tim Thompson, Merrimack’s director of community development, previously said the pending lawsuit doesn’t prohibit the Jehovah’s Witnesses from working on the site, but that any construction work conducted would be done at the risk of the congregation.

A structuring conference including the three parties involved in the case will be held June 12 to figure out a deadline for a court date. Walles said he believes the lawsuit will head to trial sometime in October or November.

Article by ERIN PLACE on www.nashuatelegraph.com

Jehovah’s Witnesses want to take over the Westminster, in St Ann’s Well Road.

A planning application submitted to the city council says the pub is the ideal location for the group, which would move from its current home in Bath Street, St Ann’s. It adds that they had wanted to revamp that building but had been unable to do so because of development regulations.

Bar staff at the pub have drawn up a petition against the proposals.

The pub is run by Punch Taverns. No one from the company wanted to comment on the plans.

Source: www.thisisnottingham.co.uk

ehovah’s Witnesses Elder Derek Payne during construction of the new Kingdom Hall in Old Goole. (Picture: Tony Saxton)

The shell and the roof are complete on the site on Manor Road, Old Goole, with hopes high the new building will be ready to move into by the end of May or early June.

Derek Payne, an Elder said: “We had 250 of our brothers on site working on the building and the whole shell and roof went up in less than a week.”

“The carpet is down now and this week we are putting the chairs in.

“The car park is block paved but we need to finish the entrance to the site and put up the railings around it.”

He explained that the new meeting place had become necessary thanks to a steadily increasing congregation, which now stood at between 60 and 70 members.

“We’ve outgrown our hall in Estcourt Street in Goole, which was built in the 1970s. That has now been sold and the money has meant we have been able to pay for the land in Old Goole,” said Mr Payne.

The rest of the money, for materials and labour has been secured via a loan but will, he says, all be raised within the church community.

An open day is to be arranged for members of the community to view the new hall, about which details will follow.

Source: www.goolecourier.co.uk

The front of the newly constructed Kingdom Hall of the Jehovah’s Witnesses building sits at 3200 S. Jamaica Blvd. City building inspectors gave the church the go-ahead Tuesday to occupy the building after a “quick build” process from the congregation’s professionally skilled tradesman that had the new building up in two and a half months. (Greg Moberly/News-Herald Photos)

Tuesday, Lake Havasu City building inspectors gave congregation members the go-ahead to occupy the new building at 3200 S. Jamaica Blvd. The building was constructed from the ground up mostly during weekends in March and April.

“We were right on schedule,” said Calvin Proctor, an elder in the church’s Spanish congregation. “Everything went very smooth.”

While it might seem unusual to outsiders, it’s standard practice for church members to conduct what they call “quick builds” of tearing down their worship homes and rebuilding them in a relatively short time. The church uses Regional Building Committees that are made up of Jehovah’s Witnesses who are professionally skilled tradesman.

Regional Building Committee California 13 and local congregation members showed up with more than 300 workers at a time on some of the extended weekends.

The last weekend of major work was April 13-15 when the carpet, theater-style chairs and cabinetry were put in place, said Phil Boersma, an elder in the church.

Tuesday, aside from a small greeting room upfront with some leftover construction, the building was clean and ready for use.

Replacing the iron benches from the previous church with comfortable theater-style seats was one of the biggest improvements, the church elders said. Also, the main room for services has five designated spaces for handicapped individuals, Boersma pointed out on a brief tour Tuesday.

The women’s restroom will have baby changing stations that weren’t available in the previous building, Boersma said.

The new building adds 800 square feet to the previous building, bumping up the total to 3,800 square feet.

“The work was just a lot of fun,” Boersma said. “Everybody was smiling the whole time.”

Since most congregation members helped out during the construction process, they’ve seen the finished product and are pleased, Boersma said.

The 4 p.m. Spanish congregation service on Saturday will be the first one in the new building with two services — one at 10 a.m. and another at 1 p.m. — set for Sunday.

Article By GREG MOBERLY on www.havasunews.com

Two recent Turkish military court decisions concerning conscientious objection claims have shown a partial recognition of the right to conscientious objection to military service as a human right. This right is protected under, among other human rights standards by which Turkey is bound, Article 9 (“Freedom of thought, conscience and religion”) of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR). The military court decisions came despite no specific Turkish legislation either recognising this right or regulating its implementation.

Yet these court judgments should be read carefully, as they show the limits of the right to conscientious objection currently recognised in Turkey. Two current requirements stand out: first, the courts require that the religion held by the conscientious objector is known to reject military service; and secondly, that the conscientious objector’s “sole and undivided” motivation for rejecting military service is his conscientious objection declared at the start of compulsory military service, which applies to men between 20 and 41 years old. Women are not liable for conscription.

Council of Europe pressure

Yet prior developments in Turkey have pointed against recognition of this right. The Council of Europe Committee of Ministers has in recent months been expressing grave concern at Turkey’s response to the case of conscientious objector Osman Murat Ülke (Application no. 39437/98), who had been arrested in 1996 and subsequently sentenced many times. The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in Strasbourg ruled in his favour in January 2006, and after the ruling Turkey informed the Committee of Ministers that regulations concerning conscientious objection will be made in due course. However, nothing has to date been done to fulfil the requirements of the Ülke judgment (see F18News 17 March 2010 http://www.forum18.org/Archive.php?article_id=1423).

Unlike the two recent cases before military courts, Ülke based his stand on his pacifism, not on any organised religion. In international law his pacifist beliefs would still fall within the exercise of freedom of religion or belief in relation to conscientious objection.

The Committee of Ministers has repeatedly expressed its concern that Turkey has not executed the ECtHR judgment, including changing the law. Ülke has been in hiding since 2007, because the authorities are seeking to arrest him. At its 6-8 March 2012 meeting, the Committee of Ministers noted among other things that “there was a valid arrest warrant against the applicant for desertion”, “that the Court’s judgment leaves no scope for any new arrest of the applicant [Ülke]“, and “strongly urged” Turkey to withdraw the arrest warrant and give “a clear time-table for the adoption of the general [legislative] measures envisaged to execute the judgment” (see ).

In response to this pressure, the Turkish Government has given contradictory signals. Justice Minister Sadullah Ergin declared on 15 November 2011 that the Defence Ministry was working on a legal regulation pertaining to conscientious objection. (On 2 June 2008, after the Ülke judgment, the Defence Ministry also claimed this – see F18News 17 March 2010 http://www.forum18.org/Archive.php?article_id=1423.) Justice Minister Ergin’s statement aroused much heated debate. It was then reported on 17 November that conscientious objection would be regulated as a crime.

On 22 November the ECtHR found in the case of Jehovah’s Witness conscientious objector Yunus Ercep v. Turkey (Application 43965/04) that denying the right to conscientious objection to military service breaks Article 9 (“Freedom of thought, conscience and religion”). This was the first time that the ECtHR had made an Article 9 judgment in relation to Turkish conscientious objectors. However, the same day Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan said that “what is called ‘conscientious objection’ has never been in our agenda” (see F18News 30 November 2011 http://www.forum18.org/Archive.php?article_id=1641).

The Ercep judgment followed the ECtHR’s Bayatyan v. Armenia judgment in July 2011 (Application no. 23459/03), in which the Court for the first time unequivocally recognised that conscientious objection to military service is protected under Article 9 (see F18News 26 July 2011 http://www.forum18.org/Archive.php?article_id=1597).

A Justice Ministry official, who wished to remain anonymous, declined to comment to Forum 18 on 12 April 2012 on the Government’s current approach to the issue of conscientious objection.

Will conscientious objection be protected in the new Constitution?

Campaigners for conscientious objection are lobbying for the planned new Constitution to include a specific commitment to this right (see F18News 30 November 2011 http://www.forum18.org/Archive.php?article_id=1641). The Conscientious Objectors Platform, a Turkish advocacy group, made a presentation to the parliamentary Constitutional Reconciliation Commission on 9 April 2012. They called for the right to conscientious objection to compulsory military service to be protected in the new Constitution. They explicitly drew on the ECtHR cases in arguing for the recognition of the right to object to military service based on an individual’s religious, political and philosophical beliefs.

The Platform also called for alternative forms of service to be introduced, under which an individual could either refuse to bear arms in carrying out military service, or carry out a completely civilian alternative service.

Following the meeting, two opposition political parties, the Republican People’s Party (CHP) and the Peace and Democracy Party (BDP), made statements noting that the right to conscientious objection to military service must be recognised to comply with Turkey’s international human rights commitments.

Whether or not the right to conscientious objection will be recognised in Turkey’s new Constitution remains to be seen. However, the Justice and Development Party (AKP) Government’s reluctance so far to create a legislative framework for conscientious objection is not a positive sign.

Landmark rulings on conscientious objection against Turkey

Following the ECtHR November 2011 judgment in the Ercep case, on 17 January 2012 the Court made a similar judgment against Turkey in the case of another Jehovah’s Witness conscientious objector Feti Demirtas (Application No. 5260/07). The ECtHR again held that the Turkish government violated Article 9 of the ECHR, stating that “the absence of an alternative to military service in Turkey is in breach of the right to conscientious objection”.

The ECtHR also reiterated its finding in the Ülke case, considering that the situation of conscientious objectors in Turkey – prosecution, criminal proceedings and “civil death” – was not compatible with the rule of law in a democratic society. The Court found that Turkey had broken Article 3 (“Prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment”) and Article 9, as well as Article 6 (“Right to a fair trial”) because Demirtas was forced as a civilian to appear before a military court (http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?item=1&portal=hbkm&action=html&highlight=5260/07&sessionid=93878125&skin=hudoc-en).

The Turkish government defended its position, claiming that the right to freedom of religion and conscience should not be applied to conscientious objection. The ECtHR, however, referred to its new jurisprudence established with the July 2011 Bayatyan case (see F18News 26 July 2011 http://www.forum18.org/Archive.php?article_id=1597)

Military court recognises right to conscientious objection

As noted above, the Turkish Government has long lacked the political will to recognise the right to conscientious objection. At the same time, the Council of Europe has long urged Turkey to make the necessary legislative changes to both prevent new violations and stop existing violations against conscientious objectors in Turkey.

However, two recent – surprising – military court decisions changed Turkey’s legal practice in relation to conscientious objection. One concerns a Jehovah’s Witness conscientious objector, Baris Görmez, the other a Muslim conscientious objector, Muhammed Serdar Delice. In both cases military courts to some degree relied on the changed jurisprudence of the ECtHR on conscientious objection following the Bayatyan v. Armenia case. However, in both cases a key factor was the declared religions of the conscientious objectors.

Article 90 of the Turkish Constitution states that in cases of conflict between international agreements in the area of fundamental rights and domestic laws, the provisions of international agreements will prevail. This provision was applied in both military court judgments.

Conscientious objection based on a group’s or individual’s convictions?

Malatya Military Court’s 7 March Delice decision outlines the Turkish military judiciary’s interpretation of the right to conscientious objection to military service. Delice declared his conscientious objection approximately five months after he had been conscripted. He declared that his conscientious objection was based on his Islamic and nationalist beliefs. The decision includes some general points about the Military Court’s interpretation of conscientious objection to military service, as well as some points specific to Delice’s case.

The Military Court interpreted the ECtHR’s approach to the right to conscientious objection as one based on the theological position of a religious group, and excluded the beliefs of the individual. It ruled out an individual rejecting military service according to his own views. Instead, the Military Court relied on the rejection of military service by an intellectual, religious or political group, as such. It referred to the example of Jehovah’s Witnesses, stating: “persons who are members of the Jehovah’s Witnesses reject military service, because they are part of this group or institution which fundamentally rejects military service”.

Selective theological assessment

Based on this understanding, a young man claiming conscientious objection to military service would have to be a member of a religious group considered by a court to be categorically opposed to military service. In the Malatya Military Court’s view, Delice belonged to “Islam which is not a belief or ideological movement that rejects the performance of military service”.

This view of Islam was a theological statement by the court. But when Delice wanted to bring in the mufti of Malatya as an expert witness, the court rejected his request. In excluding the mufti, the court cited Law No. 5271 (“On Criminal Procedure”). Article 62 of this Law states that experts must take an oath saying that they will perform their tasks based on science. The Court stated that “the religious sphere is intrinsically related to beliefs and is dogmatic, hence any view expressed from this field cannot be based on science and includes subjective elements”.

This explanation seems to contradict the Court’s view that Islam does not reject the performance of military service. On the one hand, the Court maintains that religious views cannot be presented in proceedings by experts, as they are not scientific and include subjective elements. Yet on the other, it bases its decision on its own theological assessment.

“One and undivided purpose”

According to the Military Court, Delice had Islamic and nationalist views when he was conscripted. According to the Court, he only declared his conscientious objection to military service after he “saw wrongs and deficient aspects of military service for himself and thus declared his conscientious objection”.

The Court also argued that Delice did not from the beginning of his military service have a “one and undivided purpose” of conscientious objection. The Court thus ignored in relation to conscientious objection a key part of international law’s understanding of freedom of religion or belief, which is also found in the ECHR’s Article 9 – the right to change beliefs.

Under this ruling, a conscientious objector must demonstrate that his objection exists before conscription, and that it is his “one and undivided purpose” – i.e. that he has no other reasons for wanting to leave military service. According to the Court, in Delice’s statement to the Prosecutor he said that he wanted to leave military service for a number of reasons. According to his statement, these included financial difficulties and the hostile reactions of some of his fellow-soldiers and commanders towards him because he was performing namaz (Muslim prayers) in the military.

Military or civil courts for conscientious objectors?

The Delice decision also touches on the question of whether a conscientious objector is tried by a military or a civil court. Since Delice was already performing his military service when he declared his conscientious objection, the Court noted that according to Article 9 of Law No 353 (“On the Establishment of Military Courts and Tribunal Procedure”) he was under the jurisdiction of the military courts. This reasoning seems to imply that if a person objects to being conscripted before he joins the military he may be tried by a civil court. It will be interesting to see how and in which courts newer conscientious objection claims lodged before conscription will be dealt with.

Delice has appealed against the ruling, and the High Court of Appeals decision and its reasoning will be awaited with great interest by many in and outside Turkey.

Right to conscientious objection recognised – for Jehovah’s Witnesses

Isparta Military Court recognised the right to conscientious objection to military service when it acquitted Jehovah’s Witness Baris Görmez on 13 March 2012. He had spent a total of four years in prison from November 2007 and had been charged with “rejecting wearing of the uniform” and “rejecting orders”. As in the Delice case, the Court relied on the changed jurisprudence of the ECtHR.

His fellow Jehovah’s Witnesses maintain that Görmez faced very harsh conditions in prison, but never abandoned his insistence that his faith commands him not to take part in any military activity. They say he was slapped on the face, kicked and trodden on by Gendarmerie officers.

The decision to recognise Görmez’s conscientious objection clearly does not constitute a remedy to the maltreatment he suffered. Whether he will pursue legal remedies for his maltreatment is not known.

Theological evaluations must be avoided

In the assessment of conscientious objection claims by public authorities, evaluations of theological views must be avoided. Otherwise – as in the Delice case – there is a grave risk of making decisions based on a court’s or public authority’s purely subjective views, and not based on the evidence of a particular case. There are naturally going to be diverse theological opinions – but it is important that they do not divert the course of justice and the rule of law.

Following a request by the Milli Gazete newspaper, the Diyanet, or Presidency of Religious Affairs under the Prime Minister, published its theological view on conscientious objection on 15 April 2012. According to the Diyanet, the right to conscientious objection does not exist in Islam. It argued that, in addition to worship rituals, everyone is responsible toward their family and state – including in the area of tax and military service.

The Diyanet’s view has a special significance since it comes from a state body. Diyanet views have been consulted by the judiciary on cases involving freedom of religion or belief before, such as whether the Baha’i faith is a religion or not, and whether the Alevi cemevi is a place of worship or not – even if the Diyanet has no formal responsibilities in relation to the religion or belief concerned and its opinions are not binding on public authorities (see F18News 4 May 2011 http://www.forum18.org/Archive.php?article_id=1567).

Turkish writer Professor Ihsan Eliaçik believes that the right to conscientious objection is not contrary to Islam. He argued, in a 17 April commentary on Bianet, that the Diyanet excludes any Islamic views that support conscientious objection as a way to “provide a religious cover for state policies”.

“Regardless of one’s religion, conscientious objection is everyone’s right”

The decisions concerning Görmez and Delice were received both as milestone decisions that recognise the right to conscientious objection and as disappointing – especially in the case of Delice. The Istanbul branch of Mazlumder (Association of Human Rights and Solidarity for Oppressed People) organised a 16 March press conference, at which Delice’s lawyer Mahir Orak complained that Malatya Military Court “developed a new stalling method by saying that there is no conscientious objection in Islam”. Orak also considered that the Delice and Görmez decisions were contradictory.

Delice, who was also present at the Mazlumder press conference, insisted that “regardless of one’s religion, conscientious objection is everyone’s right”.

Oguz Sönmez, speaking on behalf of the Conscientious Objectors Platform, emphasised that a military court cannot assess a conscientious objection claim properly. He added that an individual’s self-declaration must be the determining factor in deciding whether or not he is a conscientious objector.

On the other hand, Jehovah’s Witnesses have welcomed the recognition of the right to conscientious objection. Jehovah’s Witness spokesperson Ahmet Yorulmaz told Bianet on 13 March that in deciding Görmez’s case, the military court took into consideration Turkey’s conviction at the ECtHR in the Yunus case.

What needs to be done?

Military court decisions recognising the right to conscientious objection as an internationally protected human right bring Turkey closer to compliance with international human rights norms. But Turkey has not yet complied with its human rights obligations in relation to conscientious objection to military service.

The need for a comprehensive legal framework remains urgent. This must clearly recognise that human rights are individual rights that can be exercised alone or in community with others, and recognise the right to change beliefs. Theological evaluations by public authorities would not be compatible with the state’s ECHR obligation to remain neutral, which ECtHR rulings have repeatedly stressed.

Such a comprehensive legal framework meeting international standards must also include: recognition of the right to conscientious objection and non-discriminatory regulations for its application; the establishment of a non-military assessment mechanism to fairly and impartially decide on claims of conscientious objection; and the establishment of a fully civilian alternative to military service.

Source: www.forum18.org

Six months after Kazakhstan’s harsh new Religion Law and associated new punishments for exercising the right to freedom of religion or belief came into force, a growing number of religious communities are complaining of restrictions on and threats of prosecution for sharing their faith, Forum 18 News Service has learnt… Two Jehovah’s Witnesses who verbally shared their faith in the northern Kostanai Region were questioned by police in February, but in April were finally acquitted by a court.

A growing number of religious communities – including the Jehovah’s Witness and Hare Krishna communities and others, which did not want to identify themselves for the moment – complained to Forum 18 not only about the compulsory prior religious censorship imposed by the October 2011 Religion Law but the slowness of the process. They complained that the state Agency of Religious Affairs (ARA) – the body tasked with censoring all religious literature – has not responded in months to their requests for approval for specific religious materials. Without the ARA’s approval, religious communities cannot use or distribute such literature without risking heavy penalties.

The government adopted in February and published in March the Censorship Regulations, drawn up by the ARA to implement the censorship provisions of the 2011 Religion Law (see forthcoming F18News article).

Although partial state censorship of religious literature imported into the country has existed for some years, this represents the first time the way the official state censorship of religious literature and other materials is conducted has been codified. Kazakhstan’s religious censorship regime directly violates its international human rights commitments, including as a member of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) (see F18News 24 November 2011 http://www.forum18.org/Archive.php?article_id=1639).

Authorisation for religious literature required

Asked why religious communities must receive permission to distribute their religious literature in public places, the response from Svetlana Penkova, Press Secretary of the ARA in the capital Astana, was short. “The Religion Law necessitates the ARA to authorise all religious literature before it is used or distributed by religious communities,” she told Forum 18 on 27 April from Astana. She did not say what will happen to the books confiscated from the Baptists and the Hare Krishna devotees.

Asked whether religious believers cannot share their faith verbally, and whether it was lawful for the Police and Kostanai Religious Affairs officials to detain and bring to court the two Jehovah’s Witnesses, Penkova responded that she will “look into the matter, and make sure that no such incidents occur in future”.

ARA censorship – “we have been waiting for so long”

Each month since November 2011, Jehovah’s Witnesses have been sending their publications to the ARA in Astana, including successive issues of their monthly magazines Awake! and Watchtower, they told Forum 18. They point out that the magazines and books are among their members’ main sources for spiritual reading. However, as of 27 April 2012 they had not received the results of the “expert analyses” of any of these publications. “We decided not to distribute our magazines and other religious literature until we receive the results of the expert analyses, and we have been waiting for so long,” they lamented to Forum 18.

…

Forum 18 on 27 April also asked Penkova in writing what the specific reason for the delay in giving the expert analysis of the religious literature in each case was, and whether any measures will be taken against the officials who attempted to punish Jehovah’s Witnesses in Akmola Region. As of the end of the working day in Astana on 30 April, Forum 18 had received no response.

…

Verbally sharing faith illegal?

Two members of the officially registered local Jehovah’s Witness community were stopped by a local police officer on 28 February in a shop in the town of Karasu in Kostanai Region. One of two was talking to another customer in the shop about his faith, and while the other was standing by. “The officer heard them talking about religion, and detained them,” Jehovah’s Witnesses complained to Forum 18 from Almaty on 25 April.

The two were taken to Karasu town Police, questioned, and released after five hours. Later Karasu Police referred the case to Kostanai Regional Department of the ARA. The Department in turn brought an administrative case against the two in Karasu District Administrative Court, Jehovah’s Witnesses told Forum 18.

Yerbol Ospanov, Chief Specialist of the Department, who at the time was also the interim Director of the Department, was plaintiff in the court.

However, on 10 April Judge Baktybai Ismukhambetov, Chair of Karasu District Court, acquitted the two Jehovah’s Witnesses. “The Judge deemed that our believers did not violate the Law by merely speaking about religion in a public place,” Jehovah’s Witnesses told Forum 18.

No official comment

Ospanov refused to speak to Forum 18 on 27 April. As soon as he heard Forum 18′s name, after introducing himself, he put the phone down. Subsequent calls went unanswered.

Manaf Kaushev, Specialist of the ARA Department, told Forum 18 the same day that neither Nurikan Nugurbekov, the newly appointed Director, nor Ospanov were available to talk to Forum 18. Asked why the Department complained about the Jehovah’s Witnesses simply for verbally sharing their faith in a public place, Kaushev refused to answer. “Please, send us your written questions, and we will answer,” he said.

Judge Ismukhambetov declined to comment on the case. He also declined to comment on whether it is lawful for police or other authorities to stop religious believers from verbally propagating their faith in public places. “Look, I don’t want to comment,” he told Forum 18 on 27 April. “Let’s just leave it at that.”

Temirkhan Askarov, Deputy Chief of Karasu Police, on 27 April said he cannot comment on the case since he was “on vacation” when the Jehovah’s Witnesses were detained. Asked whether the Police are authorised to detain anyone who propagates religion in a public place, even if they only speak verbally, he said he could not comment. When Forum 18 insisted and asked specifically whether this meant yes, he said he cannot say. He further declined to talk with Forum 18.

Source: www.forum18.org

The patient, M.A. Shaji from Kannamaly, referred from another hospital, was diagnosed with enteric fever and bleeding from small intestine.

Though blood transfusion was necessary to correct haemoglobin and to perform surgery for arresting the bleeding, the patient and relatives have refused any form of blood and blood product infusion as they belonged to Jehovah’s Witnesses.

However, despite being very risky, the team of doctors decided to do the surgery and could successfully complete it.

Even in post-operative period, the patient was not given blood or blood products. Later, his haemoglobin level started going up and the bleeding completely stopped.

The patient was discharged and healthy now with haemoglobin of eight gm/dl. Dr. R. Padmakumar, medical director of the hospital said that the surgery was the rarest of the rare and a surprise in medical history.

“Not giving blood transfusion or blood products prior, during or after surgery to a patient with such low haemoglobin level has so far been unimaginable in medical profession,” he said.

The team led by Dr. Padmakumar included Dr. Madhukar Pai, Dr. Sanjeev Thampi, Dr. Sreevalsan, Dr. Sheetal Binu, Dr. Rajeev Jayadevan and Dr. Sooraj.

Source: www.deccanchronicle.com

Glendon Engert, left, and wife Irena. Glendon was killed along with a Stanislaus County sheriff's deputy on Thursday, April 12, 2012.

Glendon Engert, 35, of Modesto was killed along with Stanislaus County Sheriff’s Deputy Robert Paris, 53, late Thursday morning when Paris and another deputy were trying to serve an eviction on a residence at 2141 Chrysler Drive. Engert was a locksmith helping with the transaction.

Engert leaves behind a widow, Irena. They were married 13 years, according to family friend Lance Bradbury.

“She’s not only mourning the loss of her own husband, she also wants to say that her heart goes out to the family of (Deputy) Paris,” Bradbury said.

Bradbury said Glendon enjoyed travel and camping, was an avid reader and “loved to spend quality time with friends.” He was a member of the Jehovah’s Witness Kingdom Hall in Modesto.

The man inside opened fire and then barricaded himself inside for hours, drawing a massive law enforcement presence to the northwest Modesto neighborhood. The unit burned up in flames overnight.

The shooter’s condition and identity have not been confirmed by police.

Source: http://sacramento.cbslocal.com

An official of the State Committee for Work with Religious Organisations – which operates Azerbaijan’s harsh religious censorship system – admitted in mid-April that about 100 shops wishing to sell religious books are still waiting for the necessary licences. Only 16 such licences have been issued since the system’s introduction in 2009. Forum 18 News Service notes that selling religious books without a licence risks a maximum punishment for a first offence of two years’ imprisonment. Baku’s Metro banned the sale of religious books in early April. One religious publisher told Forum 18 that after the compulsory licensing system was introduced, several bookshops returned books as they were too afraid to sell them without a licence. Jehovah’s Witnesses have failed in about 15 legal cases challenging State Committee religious censorship decisions. Meanwhile, the latest hearing in the State Committee suit to liquidate Baku’s Greater Grace Protestant Church – due today (25 April) – was again postponed at the Church’s request, the court told Forum 18.

… All religious literature published in or imported into Azerbaijan is subject to strict compulsory prior censorship by the State Committee.

Human rights defenders and religious communities have long condemned state censorship of religious literature as a violation of freedom of expression. However, Jehovah’s Witnesses are the only religious community known to Forum 18 to have tried to challenge the State Committee’s censorship decisions. Yet despite about 15 legal cases they have failed to have the system changed or abolished.

Meanwhile, the court hearing in the State Committee’s suit to liquidate the Baku-based Greater Grace Protestant Church – due to have continued today (25 April) – has again been postponed.

…

Punishments

While censorship of religious literature publication, import and distribution has existed since independent Azerbaijan’s first Religion Law in 1992, state controls have steadily increased with each new version of the Law. The May 2009 Religion Law amendments increased the State Committee’s literature controls still further (see Forum 18′s Azerbaijan religious freedom survey http://www.forum18.org/Archive.php?article_id=1690).

In December 2011 the “legal” provisions regarding censorship were further tightened on the initiative of the Presidential Administration. The Milli Mejlis (parliament) passed a new Criminal Code Article 167-2, banning: “Production, sale and distribution of religious literature, religious items and other informational materials of religious nature with the aim of import, sale and distribution without appropriate authorisation”. Such “crimes” – including distributing uncensored religious literature – had previously only been punished under the Administrative Code.

Punishments for first time offenders acting alone are a fine of 5,000 to 7,000 Manats or up to two years’ imprisonment. Under Article 167-2.2, such an “offence” by a group of people “according to a prior conspiracy”, by an organised group, by an individual for a second time or by an official would attract a fine of between 7,000 and 9,000 Manats or imprisonment of between two and five years.

Fines of up to 9,000 Manats represent massive sums for most people in Azerbaijan (1,000 Manats is equivalent to 7,290 Norwegian Kroner, 964 Euros or 1,273 US Dollars). The minimum monthly wage has been 93.50 Manats (682 Norwegian Kroner, 90 Euros, or 119 US Dollars) per month from 1 December 2011.

How often is permission to publish or import denied?

…

A Baku-based Muslim author also told Forum 18 in early April that permission from the State Committee generally takes up to two months. The author said the State Committee has not rejected any of their books.

By contrast, Jehovah’s Witnesses complained to Forum 18 that dozens of their publications have been refused import permission, but note the State Committee last refused outright the import of any publication in January 2011. However, they complained to Forum 18 that each time officials grant import permission they reduce the number of copies Jehovah’s Witnesses have applied for “from anywhere between 30 and 80 per cent”.

…

Which religious books are banned?

State Committee officials frequently insist that they have refused permission for religious books to be published in or imported into Azerbaijan. They have also referred to a list of prohibited literature. Forum 18 asked the State Committee in writing on 15 December 2011 for a copy of the list. Despite several reminders, Forum 18 has yet to receive the list.

…

Difficulties challenging censorship

Jehovah’s Witnesses, frustrated by the State Committee’s denial of permission for the import of their publications or reduction in quantities allowed, are the only Azerbaijani religious community known to Forum 18 to have challenged the censorship through the courts. “For many years, State censorship in Azerbaijan has seriously limited Jehovah’s Witnesses’ lawful access to religious publications essential to their worship,” they complained to Forum 18.

Jehovah’s Witnesses welcomed as “unprecedented” a 9 September 2011 ruling by Baku’s Administrative Economic Court No. 1 declaring unfounded the State Committee’s arbitrary bans and reduction in the numbers of copies of religious publications for which Jehovah’s Witnesses requested permission. Judge Tahira Asadova’s decision concluded that nothing in their magazine Watchtower incited the use of force against others or encouraged religious hostility or enmity, Jehovah’s Witnesses told Forum 18. It obliged the State Committee to allow the import of, among other publications, the 15 December 2010 issue of Watchtower magazine which it had previously blocked.

However, this ruling was subsequently overturned, while about 15 other similar suits over religious censorship failed, Jehovah’s Witnesses lamented to Forum 18 in early April.

Source: www.forum18.org