DISCUSS COURT CASE HERE JW.org - Jehovah’s Witnesses Mobilize Global Response to Threat of Ban in Russia

[Skye]

Repentant? Of extremist activity? How can we be repentant of a crime we haven't committed?

 

Insulting ways of expressing the truths of our beliefs? What is the Ministry talking about?

[jayrtom]

1 minute ago, Skye said:

Repentant? Of extremist activity? How can we be repentant of a crime we haven't committed?

 

Insulting ways of expressing the truths of our beliefs? What is the Ministry talking about?

I guess that's because we don't have relations to secular authorities as the other religions do

[DinaG.]

14:25 According to the representative of the Ministry of Justice, the fact that the defendant continues to declare about the landings shows that the UC does not repent of extremist activity.

to declare about the landings - to declare about  putting banned publications in our halls by police officers.

 

[Alexa]

14:35 The Ministry of Justice believes that the wide coverage of court decisions on the recognition of materials as extremist gave the UC all the opportunities not to import literature into the country that would fall under the courts' argument on what to regard as extremist activity.

14:35 On the gross violation of anti-extremist legislation, according to the Ministry of Justice, says the fact that the Center for 25 years imported materials that were subsequently recognized as extremist.

14:38 The Ministry of Justice considers cynicism the fact that in the literature of Jehovah's Witnesses the word "extremist" (with reference to the literature of Jehovah's Witnesses) is quoted - despite the fact that the courts' decisions to recognize extremist literature have entered into legal force.

[Bluebell]

14:40   To summarize, a spokesman for the Ministry of Justice, as before, asks the CA to eliminate all the LRO of Jehovah's Witnesses, to confiscate their property and all that - without waiting for the court decision comes into force.

[Alexa]

14:42 The representative of the administrative defendant Omelchenko begins his speech in the debate.

Edited April 20, 2017 by Alexa

[Stormswift]

Sounds like a closing argument, perhaps this is the last one?

[hatcheckgirl]

Bit of a farce then, banning and confiscating without waiting for a decision (?!)
This is what used to happen in a kangaroo court, behind the iron curtain etc.  Not in this modern arena.  Why would this even be thought a possibility?

[Alexa]

14:45 Omelchenko analyzes the non-legal nature of the generalization made by the Ministry of Justice, that the various organizations of Jehovah's Witnesses seem to be a single organization "with structural subdivisions".

14:50 Omelchenko cites the norms of legislation on countering extremism. The law does not provide for such extremist acts as "an act in the form of inaction", "an act committed inadvertently, by negligence". The Supreme Court of Russia has repeatedly pointed out that extremism can only be active actions aimed at violent change of the foundations of the constitutional system.

[sand]

6 minutes ago, Stormswift said:

Sounds like a closing argument, perhaps this is the last one?

Normally, it is the last day. . .

[Stormswift]

3 minutes ago, Alexa said:

14:45 Omelchenko analyzes the non-legal nature of the generalization made by the Ministry of Justice, that the various organizations of Jehovah's Witnesses seem to be a single organization "with structural subdivisions".

14:50 Omelchenko cites the norms of legislation on countering extremism. The law does not provide for such extremist acts as "an act in the form of inaction", "an act committed inadvertently, by negligence". The Supreme Court of Russia has repeatedly pointed out that extremism can only be active actions aimed at violent change of the foundations of the constitutional system.

Based on THAT definition we aren't extremists because of our inactions.  

[UpstateKate]

6 minutes ago, Stormswift said:

Sounds like a closing argument, perhaps this is the last one?

According to this article posted by our sister upthread it sure sounds like it 

 

http://tass.com/world/942174

 

"Debates by the parties concerned will be the final phase of the legal proceedings. The petitioner and the respondent will be able to analyze the arguments and evidence involved. After that the court will retire for writing an opinion."

[Alexa]

Just now, Stormswift said:

Based on THAT definition we aren't extremists because of our inactions.  

• I would deny my extreme inactions of being extremists sis Stormswift

[Stormswift]

3 minutes ago, UpstateKate said:

According to this article posted by our sister upthread it sure sounds like it 

 

http://tass.com/world/942174

 

"Debates by the parties concerned will be the final phase of the legal proceedings. The petitioner and the respondent will be able to analyze the arguments and evidence involved. After that the court will retire for writing an opinion."

Write an opinion? Is that the same as a judgement, or does that come later?

[UpstateKate]

2 minutes ago, Stormswift said:

Write an opinion? Is that the same as a judgement, or does that come later?

I'm thinking yes, it's the judgement.

Edited April 20, 2017 by UpstateKate

[BlackSnow]

i'm praying for more wisdom, more courage, more insight for our lawyers; that Jehovah's Holy Spirit would tell them what to say in these closing arguments. 

[Alexa]

15:02 The representative of the plaintiff, according to Omelchenko, gave in the debate some sort of own interpretation of what extremism is. However, the defendant recalls that the Supreme Court and the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation give legal interpretation. And these courts ruled that "inciting hatred and propaganda of social, racial, national, religious superiority, whose existence should be determined taking into account all the significant circumstances of each particular case, namely the form and content of activities or information, their addressees and the target orientation , Socio-political context, the existence of a real threat, including including calls for unlawful attacks on constitutionally protected values, justification or Justification of their commission. " "Restriction through the anti-extremist legislation of freedom of conscience and religion, freedom of speech and the right to disseminate information should not take place in relation to any activity or information on the sole ground that they do not fit into generally accepted notions are not consistent with established traditional views and opinions , Come into conflict with moral or moral or religious preferences. Anything else would mean a deviation from the constitutional requirement of necessity, proportionality and justice of restrictions on the rights and freedoms of man and citizen. "

[Vinnie]

is this how king Hezekiah and the people felt as they waited on Jehovah for help?

[Alexa]

15:13 Omelchenko: The actions of the Ministry of Justice do not pursue a legitimate aim, they bear all signs of political repression. "I ask to satisfy the demands of the administrative plaintiff completely."

Full text of Anton Omelchenko's speech (PDF, 184 KB)

[Irving.]

I'm sorry but who is Omelchenko again?

[Raven]

31 minutes ago, Samira said:

14:40   To summarize, a spokesman for the Ministry of Justice, as before, asks the CA to eliminate all the LRO of Jehovah's Witnesses, to confiscate their property and all that - without waiting for the court decision comes into force.

How brazen.

[Alexa]

15:16 The debate is advocated by the Zhenkov/Wives. He begins with the personal impression of the last days. He found himself in one of Moscow's parks and saw that dozens of Jehovah's Witnesses came to this park. They did not have any posters and they did not come out to protest the lawsuit that began in the Supreme Court on April 5, 2017. They went out to clean up the garbage that had accumulated over the winter. So who are these people? Extremists or good Christians?

15:20 The Ministry of Justice demands to select all the buildings of worship of Jehovah's Witnesses in Russia, built by believers at their own expense. This happened only once in Russia, namely, a hundred years ago, in 1918. Then the decree of the Council of People's Commissars was taken away all property, including liturgical buildings, the Russian Orthodox Church.

[Stormswift]

They should have hired Judge Judy she would have told the MOJ in no uncertain terms.

[Raven]

2 minutes ago, Stormswift said:

They should have hired Judge Judy she would have told the MOJ in no uncertain terms.

How does Judge Judy feel about Jehovah's Witnesses?

[Bluebell]

"The Ministry of Justice demands to select all the buildings of worship of Jehovah's Witnesses in Russia, built by believers at their own expense"

 

this is all about wanting our buildings.......so they need us to label "extremists" to get their hand on our properties...