How is it possible that Russian authorities took even violent actions against Jehovah’s Witnesses based on opinions and evaluations rendered by alleged experts concerning a denomination’s doctrinal and theological sphere, also having labeled as “criminal” some books that were merely used for the religious instruction of children?
Reflecting on what is happening in Russia, it is important to understand that in that country, dangerous and illegal concurrences have been formed among different entities: the first one is the governmental and judicial authority of the Russian Federation, which first drafted and approved a clearly repressive law, a law that is imprecise enough as to be applicable to anyone and then, in the face of legal complaints, not only did not prove impartial, but also rejected evidence produced by the defense. This occurred in 2017, but the situation became even worse later, since Jehovah’s Witnesses have been charged with “extremism.”
The real cause for concern in this specific case of injustice is that it is not a single and extreme incident, but an actual strategy: the Russian government is exploiting such a serious, existing phenomenon as violent extremism on a “religious” basis in order to target a peaceful and law-abiding organization like Jehovah’s Witnesses; and the Russian Supreme Court decided to ostracize peaceful Russian citizens for their faith by exploiting the fear of the masses for the violence of religious extremism and terrorism which are claiming victims elsewhere. The Russian government and the whole judicial system of this great country rage against innocent believers, subjecting them to the kind of “punishment” that should strike “real” terrorists and their supporters.
The second “protagonist” in this exemplary sequence of events is the major religious authority of Russia, namely, the Orthodox Church. Europe’s—and not just Europe’s—thousand-year history shows that when religious minorities are persecuted by governmental authorities, the latter can always rely on the support or even the complicity of institutionalized religion in that given context. Particularly, a religious minority that is very active in proselytizing may more easily gain the aversion of the majority religious institution, which perceives it as a “competitor.”
In the face of persecution against their “rivals,” representatives of the majority religion usually keep silent, or they applaud repressive initiatives enacted by governmental authorities. In the case of Jehovah’s Witnesses in Russia, the Russian Orthodox Church certainly played a definite role, also because it supported and financed anti-cult organizations that were useful in targeting Jehovah’s Witnesses by liquidating their properties and sentencing them to prison or exile.
Persecution against Jehovah’s Witnesses is emblematic, but it is not an isolated case. Which other movements or denominations in Europe suffer restrictions or limitations on their freedom of religion?
The USCIRF report will hopefully allow for a greater international engagement in support of human rights in Russia; however, FECRIS, the organization whose methods and purposes have been censured by the US commission, keeps on carrying out its activities undisturbed in Europe. For example, in France, where it is headquartered, FECRIS continues to promote “special laws” against religious and spiritual minorities, while organizations which are associated with this international group, and which collaborated with institutions and police forces in the past, are known to be still active. This is a problem that the founding members of the Lirec Study Center formerly brought to the attention of OSCE/ODIHR in 2013, when Italy was the object of recommendations due, precisely, to these associations’ legal and media-related activism.
Let’s go back to the anti-cult groups. How much can they contribute to forming, even negatively, the public opinion on religious minorities, and what role do the media, such as the television and journals, play in this regard?
In Italy and worldwide, the first allies in the destructive work of anti-cult groups against religious and spiritual communities labeled as “cults” are journalists with no professional ethics, experts in the “art” of raising alarms and eliciting collective panic responses. The work of those media that underscore stories of abuse engenders a kind of chain reaction, so it may happen that some disgruntled former members turn to these media to tell their own story, which subsequently becomes exemplary, as if all stories are alike.
Actually, no interview is carried out with people who experience their faith in a serene fashion, nor with former members who left the group without becoming enemies of it. Sad to say, the reality is that the media handle information in a totally unbalanced way: most journalists tend to write articles with the aim of attracting and impressing an information-illiterate public, use old-fashioned and inconsistent metaphors, foster fear for dangerous “cults” that practice “brainwashing,” and undertake scaremongering actions that do not benefit anyone because their contents by no means correspond to reality.
Such “information” saturates the Web and even prestigious journals, as well as TV programs on public service broadcasters. Besides spreading misinformation, the press and the media are generally inclined to create and endorse actual witch-hunts against those groups that come to be targeted each time.
Sadly, Jehovah’s Witnesses are a frequent target, but our Study Center continually receives requests for help from other groups hit by defamation and subjected to totally unjustified attacks that often have very serious consequences in the life of individuals and organizations.”
