Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

xraytango wrote:

Also from what I can gather their stance on blood is from the Bible and not just some weird thing someone came up with.

To a lot of people that is a distinction without a difference.

Steelmage99 wrote:

xraytango wrote:

Also from what I can gather their stance on blood is from the Bible and not just some weird thing someone came up with.

To a lot of people that is a distinction without a difference.

Yeah, religious freedom is not about justifying the beliefs of any given faith, but allowing people to worship (or not) as they see fit. Now, there are always going to be limits, but the trend in Western democracies has been against religious persecution. Russia has shown that they are perfectly willing to go after a religious minority that they view as insufficiently Russian.

Trying to justify it under vague laws that basically allow authorities to brand any non sanctioned religions as "cults" or "extremists" shows just how little one values individual liberties and are willing to accept authoritarianism under the guise of protecting one's culture. But don't be terribly surprised when more progressive commentators point out that rounding up small groups of ethnic and religious minorities is indicative of totalitarian practices and usually doesn't end well.

Of course, there are plenty in the US that would love to do the same thing. Fortunately, we still have some safeguards that work to limit such governmental actions.

xraytango wrote:

Also maybe some of our Russian contributors could explain Article 28 of the Russian constitution, doesn't it guarantee religious liberty?

It does. And it is not being violated. Much of the articles may give a wrong view. The Jehovah's Witnesses as people or faith are not being banned. Only the organisation is, because it violated the principles set out in Russia's cult legislation. The faith of the Jehovah's Witnesses isn't being outlawed or anything. Individual Jehovah's Witnesses are free to continue to gather and worship.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jmurph wrote:

Steelmage99 wrote:

xraytango wrote:

Also from what I can gather their stance on blood is from the Bible and not just some weird thing someone came up with.

To a lot of people that is a distinction without a difference.

Trying to justify it under vague laws that basically allow authorities to brand any non sanctioned religions as "cults" or "extremists" shows just how little one values individual liberties and are willing to accept authoritarianism under the guise of protecting one's culture. But don't be terribly surprised when more progressive commentators point out that rounding up small groups of ethnic and religious minorities is indicative of totalitarian practices and usually doesn't end well.

The law isn't vague. In fact, the law makes it is very clear when a cult is considered extremist. It is only extremist when it proselytises outside of its religious buildings, or when it encourages people to commit illegal acts, suicide or refuse medical procedures. Pretty clear, isn't it?

 jmurph wrote:
Of course, there are plenty in the US that would love to do the same thing. Fortunately, we still have some safeguards that work to limit such governmental actions.

Unfortunately, you mean. The large amount of crazy cults you guys have over there really isn't something to be proud of. You could really use some tighter legislation, and not just on cults.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

Oh, but it never was about a health concern. That is just how the western media has spun it in order to ridicule Russia. This is about Russia's law against religious extremism which the Jehovah's Witnesses violated on multiple counts, one of them being encouraging its members to refuse certain medical procedures.

...

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/apr/20/russia-bans-jehovahs-witnesses wrote:The Interfax news agency on Thursday quoted justice ministry attorney Svetlana Borisova in court as saying that the Jehovah’s Witnesses “pose a threat to the rights of the citizens, public order and public security”. Borisova also said Jehovah’s Witnesses’ opposition to blood transfusions violates Russian healthcare laws.

But let's chuck that one to fake news, right?

 Iron_Captain wrote:
It does. And it is not being violated. Much of the articles may give a wrong view. The Jehovah's Witnesses as people or faith are not being banned. Only the organisation is, because it violated the principles set out in Russia's cult legislation. The faith of the Jehovah's Witnesses isn't being outlawed or anything. Individual Jehovah's Witnesses are free to continue to gather and worship.

Gather and worship where? Their properties were seized. Worship in the public space, where they are certain to even more antagonize the generally already hostile populace? Sure.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

Gather and worship where? Their properties were seized. Worship in the public space, where they are certain to even more antagonize the generally already hostile populace? Sure.

I assume that would count as proselytizing, which apparently makes them extremists instead of just annoying. Interesting definition of extremism there.

I...guess they're supposed to do it at home in the basement, where no one has to look at them?

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

Oh, but it never was about a health concern. That is just how the western media has spun it in order to ridicule Russia. This is about Russia's law against religious extremism which the Jehovah's Witnesses violated on multiple counts, one of them being encouraging its members to refuse certain medical procedures.

...

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/apr/20/russia-bans-jehovahs-witnesses wrote:The Interfax news agency on Thursday quoted justice ministry attorney Svetlana Borisova in court as saying that the Jehovah’s Witnesses “pose a threat to the rights of the citizens, public order and public security”. Borisova also said Jehovah’s Witnesses’ opposition to blood transfusions violates Russian healthcare laws.

But let's chuck that one to fake news, right?

No, let's chuck that one to selective reporting and tearing people's statements out of their contexts. It is also factually incorrect because it does not violate healthcare laws but rather laws on religious extremism.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
It does. And it is not being violated. Much of the articles may give a wrong view. The Jehovah's Witnesses as people or faith are not being banned. Only the organisation is, because it violated the principles set out in Russia's cult legislation. The faith of the Jehovah's Witnesses isn't being outlawed or anything. Individual Jehovah's Witnesses are free to continue to gather and worship.

Gather and worship where? Their properties were seized. Worship in the public space, where they are certain to even more antagonize the generally already hostile populace? Sure.

Well, where do normal people gather? In their homes, in a rented space or conference room, a dedicated building they bought for it, in the forest. Pretty much wherever they want really.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Spinner wrote:

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

Gather and worship where? Their properties were seized. Worship in the public space, where they are certain to even more antagonize the generally already hostile populace? Sure.

I assume that would count as proselytizing, which apparently makes them extremists instead of just annoying. Interesting definition of extremism there.

I...guess they're supposed to do it at home in the basement, where no one has to look at them?

No, proselytising is aimed at people who are not followers of a religion. It is defined as such in the law. You might consider actually looking up how Russian law defines extremism before making comments about it. It is amazing just how much some people will assume things about things they are totally ignorant of.

 jmurph wrote:
Yeah, religious freedom is not about justifying the beliefs of any given faith, but allowing people to worship (or not) as they see fit. Now, there are always going to be limits, but the trend in Western democracies has been against religious persecution.

On the other hand some cults have been forced to follow certain laws even in the USA. The mormons giving up on bigamy (polygamy?) after specific laws being passed against such a practice springs to mind.

Spetulhu wrote:

 jmurph wrote:
Yeah, religious freedom is not about justifying the beliefs of any given faith, but allowing people to worship (or not) as they see fit. Now, there are always going to be limits, but the trend in Western democracies has been against religious persecution.

On the other hand some cults have been forced to follow certain laws even in the USA. The mormons giving up on bigamy (polygamy?) after specific laws being passed against such a practice springs to mind.

In some ways yes, but at the same time the law is just prohibiting marriage licenses to multiple partners, not preventing them from otherwise living as a cohabitating family group and practicing their beliefs in all other respects.

It's usually only when they do things like force 15 year olds into marriage as some old dudes 4th wife that the law comes for them, or when wife #3 finds out about wives #1, 2, and 4 and there's some sort of legal dispute over money, otherwise nobody really cares.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

Oh, but it never was about a health concern. That is just how the western media has spun it in order to ridicule Russia. This is about Russia's law against religious extremism which the Jehovah's Witnesses violated on multiple counts, one of them being encouraging its members to refuse certain medical procedures.

...

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/apr/20/russia-bans-jehovahs-witnesses wrote:The Interfax news agency on Thursday quoted justice ministry attorney Svetlana Borisova in court as saying that the Jehovah’s Witnesses “pose a threat to the rights of the citizens, public order and public security”. Borisova also said Jehovah’s Witnesses’ opposition to blood transfusions violates Russian healthcare laws.

But let's chuck that one to fake news, right?

No, let's chuck that one to selective reporting and tearing people's statements out of their contexts. It is also factually incorrect because it does not violate healthcare laws but rather laws on religious extremism.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
It does. And it is not being violated. Much of the articles may give a wrong view. The Jehovah's Witnesses as people or faith are not being banned. Only the organisation is, because it violated the principles set out in Russia's cult legislation. The faith of the Jehovah's Witnesses isn't being outlawed or anything. Individual Jehovah's Witnesses are free to continue to gather and worship.

Gather and worship where? Their properties were seized. Worship in the public space, where they are certain to even more antagonize the generally already hostile populace? Sure.

Well, where do normal people gather? In their homes, in a rented space or conference room, a dedicated building they bought for it, in the forest. Pretty much wherever they want really.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Spinner wrote:

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

Gather and worship where? Their properties were seized. Worship in the public space, where they are certain to even more antagonize the generally already hostile populace? Sure.

I assume that would count as proselytizing, which apparently makes them extremists instead of just annoying. Interesting definition of extremism there.

I...guess they're supposed to do it at home in the basement, where no one has to look at them?

No, proselytising is aimed at people who are not followers of a religion. It is defined as such in the law. You might consider actually looking up how Russian law defines extremism before making comments about it. It is amazing just how much some people will assume things about things they are totally ignorant of.

I was working off the definition you gave earlier in the thread, actually.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
I think the problem is that we don't know exactly what happens in the backrooms and what deals Putin has and how independent the supreme court in Russia truly is. i never said Putin is a dictator because he has majority support, its his actions against the opposition that make him a dictator, political assassination and oppression is not the hallmark of a democratic leader. Being more democratic than ever also says very little.

Trouble is, there is no evidence Putin has ever undertaken anything against his political opposition (beyond locking them up when they inevitably violate laws on organising mass rallies without permit). And to be honest, I have never understood that myth in the first place. Why would Putin, with his massive approval ratings and control over the majority of media have a need to assassinate obscure political so-called rivals that half of Russia has never even heard of and that never really enjoyed any significant political support whatsoever? The people who got assassinated were absolutely no threat to Putin. Why would he risk everything he has built up to clear them out of the way when they aren't even in the way in the first place?
Combined with the fact that all of the people who are often named as people who were killed by Putin had dealings with criminal or corrupt elements (either by investigating them or in some cases participating in them) makes me believe something else happened, and that the whole 'Putin assassinates his political rivals' story was then made up by the liberal opposition in order to discredit Putin (a story subsequently taken up and expanded on in western media). It is no secret that the liberal opposition in Russia (Putin's most vocal critics) have always had close ties to western media.

Its not about the popularity. Its about crafting a narrative and image that the opposition distorts. Putin's popularity comes in large part of how he manages the media campaign around him. The opposition tries to show how corrupt Putin really is and wants ordinary Russians to see this. That is why the opposition is a problem, it has nothing to do with how popular he is.
I will leave the deaths discussion for the later section.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

The fact that missionary activities are forbidden for smaller organizations though shows a two tiered system in place. A system that discriminates against certain religious groups based on arbitrary laws in a democracy being used to target them.

The law might be justified, but I certainly have grave doubts about it being used as a bludgeon against the JW. I very clearly see why Russia included them on that list, I also see it had nothing to do with this law. Its a smokescreen for a targeted government campaign against a peaceful religious group.

It had everything to do with this law. The law was specifically made in order to also have leverage against non-violent religious cult groups. A cult does not need to be violent in order to be undesirable. Violating cultural norms is reason enough for many punishable offenses (also in the West), and I believe if there is an entire group dedicated to encouraging or excusing such deviant (or even illegal) behaviour that banning them is the right thing to. This is something that happens a lot. Dutch law followed the same line of reasoning when it banned Vereniging Martijn (a club of pedophiles), when it attempts to ban biker clubs or when it bans racist groups.

You don't see that this is the Russian state making a choice in how to employ this law. The specifically fought the JW in court because they didn't automatically fall under this law. That's the key difference. Now you're equating actual harmful groups to a pacifist religious organization, which is a very slippery slope.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
I certainly have objections to just calling Russia a democratic nation, as its treatment of the opposition shows. The thing you said about tyranny of the majority and the 'Russian people saying' perfectly encapsulates why Russia is far from a decent democracy. Why does the government give in to the tyranny of the majority and what the 'Russian population says' by prosecuting these people when it should defend them? JW didn't hurt anyone but themselves! Yeah they might have some weird viewpoints but then make legislation that targets those viewpoints instead of just implementing a blanket ban just because 'they disturb' you.

This is all very true. A good democracy safeguards the rights of minorities. Russia is far from being a good democracy. But it is even further from being a dictatorship. Russia is a flawed democracy, and you could definitely call it a dictatorship of the majority. But that makes the people the dictator, and not Putin.
I'd also like to note that the vast majority of people who frequently criticise Putin are all still alive, and the only ones who died were the ones that ran afoul of criminal elements or a certain mister Kadyrov.

As long as political opponents happen to get killed and opposition politicians get harassed and arrested it runs closer to a dictatorship than a democracy. when the state controls almost all media and consistently runs pro-Putin material while criticizing his opponents you cant really have free elections. This is why Putin is a dictator. The idea that the only ones who died ran afoul is ridiculous, are you really saying Magnitsky, Litvinenko and of course Ukranian president Yushchenko fell afoul of bad elements? These people were clearly killed or were tried to kill because them living was inconvenient to Putin.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2017/03/23/here-are-ten-critics-of-vladimir-putin-who-died-violently-or-in-suspicious-ways/?utm_term=.d48965f9784f

Magnitsky died because he was given inadequate medical treatment in prison. If you have ever seen a Russian prison, that story makes a lot of sense. The Russian prison system is absolutely horrid. I don't see why it should've been an assassination.
Yuschenko survived an attempted poisoning once, but as far as I know there is nothing that leads to Putin or Russia. More likely his political enemies in Ukraine are responsible, especially seeing as how hostile the presidential campaign of 2004 was. Also, Yuschenko is still alive. If Putin had wanted him dead he would have been dead. The GRU never botches its operations.
Litvinenko was a filthy traitor and deserved to die. That is probably the only one who was assassinated on orders of Putin. Probably not because he criticised Putin though, but rather because of the danger of him having and passing on knowledge the Russian secret services do not want others to know. Of particular note in this is that in the time before his death, he grew very close to Chechen separatist leaders and converted to Islam. This probably made him a danger to Russian state security that could no longer be ignored.
Again, for every person on that list (apart from Litvinenko) there are no clear traces that point to the Russian state, and every person on that list had people who wanted him/her dead. Without further evidence, I see no need to jump to conclusions and blame Putin.
Also, what people are generally ignoring is that people who support Putin also get assassinated. What do you think, does Putin also assassinate his supporters or do criminal elements in Russian society conveniently only target Putin supporters? And why do we never hear about these murders in the West?

Magnitsky died because he was brutally beaten and left to die in his jail cell, there is a difference. If you don't see why his death was awfully convenient. Its extremely bad form for a democracy to have the police beating political opponents to death in prison.
Yuschenko survived true, but only due to emergency treatment. Meanwhile Ukraine did not posses the facilities required to manufacture the poison used as the purity of it pointed to a professional laboratory. That the main suspect fled to Russia and was granted asylum also doesn't really help Putin's case.
Litvinenko was killed in the most careless of circumstances in the way the material was transported to London, it could have killed many others. He was killed because he was one of the primary accusers of Putin being responsible for the appartement bombings of 1999. he also only converted to Islam after he fled Russia, he was already a critique before making that decision.

These aren't even the only critiques that died of course. Far too many critiques of Putin die conveniently for Russia to be called a democracy, it just doesn't adhere to the standards. Russia being a violent country does not excuse the amount of unsolved or questionable cases. Far too easily they just push it on the bad elements of society.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Putin might not be the exact textbook case of a dictator, but the way he suppresses the opposition (critiques conveniently die) certainly does make a good case for him to be called as such. Dictators can frequently be popular however, one does not rule out the other in a state where the government controls almost all mainstream media sources.

A dictator is an absolute ruler, a lord who is served by his country and by his people. Putin on the other hand, is the servant of Russia rather than Russia being the servant of Putin. An important distinction to make.

A dictator is more than just an absolute ruler, that is only the strictest dictionary definition. In the sliding scale of international politics Putin certainly is more on the side of dictator than democratic president. Putin certainly has put on a good show of being a servant to Russia however!

We will have to agree to disagree on this then, but at least you recognise there is something in between dictatorships and full democracies. It is in that grey area that Russia and Putin fall.

Of course were going to have to agree to disagree. Russia is a semi-democracy with very strong authoritarian tendencies. Being nominally a democracy doesn't hide that.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Russia being a violent country does not excuse the amount of unsolved or questionable cases. Far too easily they just push it on the bad elements of society.

Aye, the US is, by any standard amongst great nations, a violent nation as well, but attacks on or murders of journalists and those involved in politics is almost unheard of, and when they happen, they're usually not terribly suspicious. Giffords for example was pretty clearly just targeted by some loon off his rocker, and Giffords wasnt exactly an outside political opponent someone in the establishment GOP was looking to off for political gain.

That said, it's also not perhaps unfair to note that some stuff that is portrayed as suspicious or politically motivated in Russia may not be. In the same way we will believe almost any atrocity story about IS, true or not, because they routinely do outlandishly terrible things anyway, some stuff out of Russia is also treated in a political light when it may not be, sometimes gak just does happen.

But yeah, Russia has a lot of very politically motivated violence by almost any standard.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Russia being a violent country does not excuse the amount of unsolved or questionable cases. Far too easily they just push it on the bad elements of society.

Aye, the US is, by any standard amongst great nations, a violent nation as well, but attacks on or murders of journalists and those involved in politics is almost unheard of, and when they happen, they're usually not terribly suspicious. Giffords for example was pretty clearly just targeted by some loon off his rocker, and Giffords wasnt exactly an outside political opponent someone in the establishment GOP was looking to off for political gain.

That said, it's also not perhaps unfair to note that some stuff that is portrayed as suspicious or politically motivated in Russia may not be. In the same way we will believe almost any atrocity story about IS, true or not, because they routinely do outlandishly terrible things anyway, some stuff out of Russia is also treated in a political light when it may not be, sometimes gak just does happen.

But yeah, Russia has a lot of very politically motivated violence by almost any standard.

Of course. Yet it goes beyond just simple assassinations. Oppression of the opposition also goes way beyond what should be permissible in a democracy. Sure what they are doing might technically be against the law, but is that law democratic in the first place? I think in case of both the oppression of the opposition and of the JW a good argument can be made that the law should not be used as such in a democratic country.

Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
I think the problem is that we don't know exactly what happens in the backrooms and what deals Putin has and how independent the supreme court in Russia truly is. i never said Putin is a dictator because he has majority support, its his actions against the opposition that make him a dictator, political assassination and oppression is not the hallmark of a democratic leader. Being more democratic than ever also says very little.

Trouble is, there is no evidence Putin has ever undertaken anything against his political opposition (beyond locking them up when they inevitably violate laws on organising mass rallies without permit). And to be honest, I have never understood that myth in the first place. Why would Putin, with his massive approval ratings and control over the majority of media have a need to assassinate obscure political so-called rivals that half of Russia has never even heard of and that never really enjoyed any significant political support whatsoever? The people who got assassinated were absolutely no threat to Putin. Why would he risk everything he has built up to clear them out of the way when they aren't even in the way in the first place?
Combined with the fact that all of the people who are often named as people who were killed by Putin had dealings with criminal or corrupt elements (either by investigating them or in some cases participating in them) makes me believe something else happened, and that the whole 'Putin assassinates his political rivals' story was then made up by the liberal opposition in order to discredit Putin (a story subsequently taken up and expanded on in western media). It is no secret that the liberal opposition in Russia (Putin's most vocal critics) have always had close ties to western media.

Its not about the popularity. Its about crafting a narrative and image that the opposition distorts. Putin's popularity comes in large part of how he manages the media campaign around him. The opposition tries to show how corrupt Putin really is and wants ordinary Russians to see this. That is why the opposition is a problem, it has nothing to do with how popular he is.
I will leave the deaths discussion for the later section.

That is gotta be one of the flimsiest arguments I have ever heard of. So there is this hugely powerful guy who controls all the media and is capable of carefully crafting and controlling his image. Why should someone with that level of power be afraid of a random nobody with no evidence shouting random accusations? Even if said random nobody were right, who would believe them when the entire rest of the country says something otherwise? Simply put, the opposition is not influential enough to be able to distort Putin's image, therefore the argument that Putin is killing them to protect his image falls flat. Such an assassination would be of no benefit at all to Putin, only to the opposition, for whom this story is strangely convenient...

Also, if the killings were organised by the government, we'd expect some kind of pattern. Instead, they appear to be completely random. Care to explain that? Maybe Putin has a dartboard with pictures of all his critics and whoever he hits with a dart dies today? In Western media, he does come across as some kind of cartoon villain, so such an explanation wouldn't actually surprise me at all

Finally, if you think Putin's popularity is because of his good media image, you are wrong. Look at Putin. Now look at Russian rulers of the recent past. Now look at the alternatives to Putin. Now look back at Putin. Do you see why he is so popular now?

Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

The fact that missionary activities are forbidden for smaller organizations though shows a two tiered system in place. A system that discriminates against certain religious groups based on arbitrary laws in a democracy being used to target them.

The law might be justified, but I certainly have grave doubts about it being used as a bludgeon against the JW. I very clearly see why Russia included them on that list, I also see it had nothing to do with this law. Its a smokescreen for a targeted government campaign against a peaceful religious group.

It had everything to do with this law. The law was specifically made in order to also have leverage against non-violent religious cult groups. A cult does not need to be violent in order to be undesirable. Violating cultural norms is reason enough for many punishable offenses (also in the West), and I believe if there is an entire group dedicated to encouraging or excusing such deviant (or even illegal) behaviour that banning them is the right thing to. This is something that happens a lot. Dutch law followed the same line of reasoning when it banned Vereniging Martijn (a club of pedophiles), when it attempts to ban biker clubs or when it bans racist groups.

You don't see that this is the Russian state making a choice in how to employ this law. The specifically fought the JW in court because they didn't automatically fall under this law. That's the key difference. Now you're equating actual harmful groups to a pacifist religious organization, which is a very slippery slope.

They do fall automatically under the law. That is why the state had them banned when they learned of the JW violating this law. They only had to be fought in court because the JW appealed, which is a legal right in Russia and every other democratic nation.

Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

Magnitsky died because he was given inadequate medical treatment in prison. If you have ever seen a Russian prison, that story makes a lot of sense. The Russian prison system is absolutely horrid. I don't see why it should've been an assassination.
Yuschenko survived an attempted poisoning once, but as far as I know there is nothing that leads to Putin or Russia. More likely his political enemies in Ukraine are responsible, especially seeing as how hostile the presidential campaign of 2004 was. Also, Yuschenko is still alive. If Putin had wanted him dead he would have been dead. The GRU never botches its operations.
Litvinenko was a filthy traitor and deserved to die. That is probably the only one who was assassinated on orders of Putin. Probably not because he criticised Putin though, but rather because of the danger of him having and passing on knowledge the Russian secret services do not want others to know. Of particular note in this is that in the time before his death, he grew very close to Chechen separatist leaders and converted to Islam. This probably made him a danger to Russian state security that could no longer be ignored.
Again, for every person on that list (apart from Litvinenko) there are no clear traces that point to the Russian state, and every person on that list had people who wanted him/her dead. Without further evidence, I see no need to jump to conclusions and blame Putin.
Also, what people are generally ignoring is that people who support Putin also get assassinated. What do you think, does Putin also assassinate his supporters or do criminal elements in Russian society conveniently only target Putin supporters? And why do we never hear about these murders in the West?

Magnitsky died because he was brutally beaten and left to die in his jail cell, there is a difference. If you don't see why his death was awfully convenient. Its extremely bad form for a democracy to have the police beating political opponents to death in prison.

Magnitsky was not a political prisoner. He was convicted of fraud (of which he was guilty beyond doubt, virtually all businessmen in Russia are) and not active in politics. Even if you believe he was assassinated, he was assassinated for exposing corruption within Russian police (which is almost certainly true as well), not for being critical of Putin. And yes, it is bad to have prisoners beaten to death. Sadly, it is not uncommon in Russia. The attention this case brought however led to widespread investigations and discussions that led to improvements within the prison system.
You will find for most so-called "Putin critics" that they actually died because they made enemies out of the wrong people when they tried to expose corruption. And corruption, as you may know is omnipresent in Russian society.

Disciple of Fate wrote:Yuschenko survived true, but only due to emergency treatment. Meanwhile Ukraine did not posses the facilities required to manufacture the poison used as the purity of it pointed to a professional laboratory. That the main suspect fled to Russia and was granted asylum also doesn't really help Putin's case.

News flash: people can get stuff from connections abroad.
And yes, the main suspect was granted asylum in Russia as he most certainly would not have gotten a fair trial in Ukraine. Any democratic nation grants asylum in such cases.

Disciple of Fate wrote:Litvinenko was killed in the most careless of circumstances in the way the material was transported to London, it could have killed many others. He was killed because he was one of the primary accusers of Putin being responsible for the appartement bombings of 1999. he also only converted to Islam after he fled Russia, he was already a critique before making that decision.

Exactly. He had been criticising and slandering Putin for years before he got killed. Why wasn't he assassinated then? He was assassinated only after getting connections to the Chechen separatist leadership. Gee, I wonder if there is a connection?

Disciple of Fate wrote:These aren't even the only critiques that died of course. Far too many critiques of Putin die conveniently for Russia to be called a democracy, it just doesn't adhere to the standards. Russia being a violent country does not excuse the amount of unsolved or questionable cases. Far too easily they just push it on the bad elements of society.

When these 'bad elements of society' are pretty much omnipresent in society it actually makes sense. I don't think you fully comprehend the scope of corruption in Russia. Still, you might have a point if critics of Putin died noticeably more than people who are not critics of Putin. This however is not the case. Russia has definitely issues preventing it from being a full democracy (restrictions on freedom of speech and government control of media are important ones) but opposition and government critics being

Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Putin might not be the exact textbook case of a dictator, but the way he suppresses the opposition (critiques conveniently die) certainly does make a good case for him to be called as such. Dictators can frequently be popular however, one does not rule out the other in a state where the government controls almost all mainstream media sources.

A dictator is an absolute ruler, a lord who is served by his country and by his people. Putin on the other hand, is the servant of Russia rather than Russia being the servant of Putin. An important distinction to make.

A dictator is more than just an absolute ruler, that is only the strictest dictionary definition. In the sliding scale of international politics Putin certainly is more on the side of dictator than democratic president. Putin certainly has put on a good show of being a servant to Russia however!

We will have to agree to disagree on this then, but at least you recognise there is something in between dictatorships and full democracies. It is in that grey area that Russia and Putin fall.

Of course were going to have to agree to disagree. Russia is a semi-democracy with very strong authoritarian tendencies. Being nominally a democracy doesn't hide that.

Russia is much more than just nominally a democracy (it has free elections and more than 2 political parties for one).

Vaktathi wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Russia being a violent country does not excuse the amount of unsolved or questionable cases. Far too easily they just push it on the bad elements of society.

Aye, the US is, by any standard amongst great nations, a violent nation as well, but attacks on or murders of journalists and those involved in politics is almost unheard of, and when they happen, they're usually not terribly suspicious. Giffords for example was pretty clearly just targeted by some loon off his rocker, and Giffords wasnt exactly an outside political opponent someone in the establishment GOP was looking to off for political gain.

That said, it's also not perhaps unfair to note that some stuff that is portrayed as suspicious or politically motivated in Russia may not be. In the same way we will believe almost any atrocity story about IS, true or not, because they routinely do outlandishly terrible things anyway, some stuff out of Russia is also treated in a political light when it may not be, sometimes gak just does happen.

But yeah, Russia has a lot of very politically motivated violence by almost any standard.

True. The explanation as to why the US does not have the same level of political violence despite being a more violent society overall is very simple:

This map represents an index of corruption by country. Notice how Russia is one of the most corrupt places in the world? In the US, some say that politicians are criminals. But in Russia, you can say that criminals are politicians. Russia is a mafia state. Virtually every person involved in politics in Russia is also involved in criminal business. Most likely, this includes even Putin.

Gather and worship where? Their properties were seized.

They could do what early Christians did when they were the minority and were being hounded. Find somewhere private and out of the way and away from prying eyes, marked with a symbol all of them would understand (A sort of "chi marks the spot" sign).

Besides, if their god is "everywhere", then specific real estate locations become irrelevant, surely?

Were obviously not going to be on the same page on this Iron Captain, and I feel that further debate from my side will just start making the argument go around in circles. Needless to say there are still a very significant number of issues that need to be resolved to push Russia further into the direction of a true democracy, although the 'true' part is obviously a mix of factors that countries need to be weighed on.

We can agree to disagree on most parts. But I think we can both share the opinion that there is room for improvement.

 Frazzled wrote:


Extremely annoying yes. Dangerous...no. Pretty much the antithesis of dangerous unless you give in to the desire to fake your won death to not talk to them.

Well, I do have a safe room to hide from them, and an escape route planned out if somebody else in the house gets the stupids and opens the door.



But you know them JWs. They can turn up anywhere at anytime. :

Well personally I´m not gonna shed any tears over this, cults are quite low on my sympathy list

So Putin did indeed see himself (or at least hook his regime with) a reborn of Tsar.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Magnitsky was not a political prisoner. He was convicted of fraud (of which he was guilty beyond doubt, virtually all businessmen in Russia are) and not active in politics.

Except this is how the con works, in every oligarchy you can care to think of. In order to get money and power you have to work within the corrupt system you have to undertake corrupt dealings. Then those corrupt dealings are left hanging over you like a Sword of Damocles, so if you ever step out of line suddenly your corruption becomes an issue. The point is the selective enforcement of the law, everyone is corrupt but the corruption charges are only leveled against people who step out of line politically.

True. The explanation as to why the US does not have the same level of political violence despite being a more violent society overall is very simple:

Ah hahaha... yeah no. The murder rate in Russia is 2.4 times as high as the US. 3.9 per 100,000 compared to 9.5 per 100,000.

It's kind of funny how because we talk about gun violence in the US, a lot of people get this crazy idea that the US is the most violent place ever. Guns certainly drive up the murder rate in the US, to the point where the US has a very high murder rate compared to other developed countries like those in Europe, Japan or Australia. But all these countries still have pretty low murder rates overall, on account of the pretty strong levels of education, relative lack of extreme poverty, effective police and courts.

But if you compare to a country like Russia, which lacks those things, well then you see a much higher murder rate, which more than swamps any issue with gun saturation.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Were obviously not going to be on the same page on this Iron Captain, and I feel that further debate from my side will just start making the argument go around in circles. Needless to say there are still a very significant number of issues that need to be resolved to push Russia further into the direction of a true democracy, although the 'true' part is obviously a mix of factors that countries need to be weighed on.

At this point it's less about pushing the Russia towards a more democratic state, and more about arresting the on-going slide away from democracy.

 sebster wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Magnitsky was not a political prisoner. He was convicted of fraud (of which he was guilty beyond doubt, virtually all businessmen in Russia are) and not active in politics.

Except this is how the con works, in every oligarchy you can care to think of. In order to get money and power you have to work within the corrupt system you have to undertake corrupt dealings. Then those corrupt dealings are left hanging over you like a Sword of Damocles, so if you ever step out of line suddenly your corruption becomes an issue. The point is the selective enforcement of the law, everyone is corrupt but the corruption charges are only leveled against people who step out of line politically.

Not necessarily. It certainly has been done (it is how Putin broke the power of the oligarchs) but it is not usually how it goes. Everyone knows that everyone is corrupt, but the key thing is that there never is any evidence for this. When you do not manage to hide your corruption well, you will get in trouble regardless of your political affiliation. You will also get in trouble when you make enemies out of the wrong people who are able to expose your corruption. This is what happened to Magnitsky. He had a rivalry with several high-ranking police officials. In order to get rid of them, he attempted to expose their corruption. Unfortunately for him the plan backfired when the police officials were able to expose his corruption and did so more convincingly then Magnitsky's accusations. Magnitsky had nothing to do with politics, it was just the way business goes in Russia.

 sebster wrote:

True. The explanation as to why the US does not have the same level of political violence despite being a more violent society overall is very simple:

Ah hahaha... yeah no. The murder rate in Russia is 2.4 times as high as the US. 3.9 per 100,000 compared to 9.5 per 100,000.

Violence is more than murder rates. Murder rates are also hard to compare between different legal systems because they often have different definitions or keep statistics differently. In Russia for example killing someone in a traffic accident is considered murder in many cases, whereas in the US it isn't. A murder rate does not necessarily say much about how violent a given society is. That depends on much more, including the level of violent crime and other types of violence, the geographical pattern and what kind of people become victims. If for example there is a violent feud between criminal gangs going on that drives the murder rate up, that does not mean that society overall has become more violent.

 sebster wrote:
It's kind of funny how because we talk about gun violence in the US, a lot of people get this crazy idea that the US is the most violent place ever. Guns certainly drive up the murder rate in the US, to the point where the US has a very high murder rate compared to other developed countries like those in Europe, Japan or Australia. But all these countries still have pretty low murder rates overall, on account of the pretty strong levels of education, relative lack of extreme poverty, effective police and courts.

But if you compare to a country like Russia, which lacks those things, well then you see a much higher murder rate, which more than swamps any issue with gun saturation.

That does not hold up. Russia has in fact a very high level of education. Higher than the US and even most of Europe. Russia has in fact the highest proportion of people with tertiary education degrees in the world. Russia also lacks extreme poverty (extreme poverty in my mind is not being able to satisfy basic needs) even though it has some pretty appalling poverty overall and police and courts aren't noticeably less effective than in other developed countries (just corrupt, but that usually isn't noticeable for the average guy, just for those in business and politics).
Also when you compare it to a country like Finland, which is very affluent has a very good reputation in regards to it education system you will see that Finland still has a higher murder rate (2.5) than countries that are much poorer such as Serbia (1.3) or Greece (1.1). Similarly, Russia is much wealthier than Moldova, yet still has a much higher homicide rate. While economic and educational conditions certainly play a role, they do not tell the whole story. Other, cultural things like the amount of alcohol consumption can also play a huge role (which it certainly does in the cases of Finland and Russia).

 sebster wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Were obviously not going to be on the same page on this Iron Captain, and I feel that further debate from my side will just start making the argument go around in circles. Needless to say there are still a very significant number of issues that need to be resolved to push Russia further into the direction of a true democracy, although the 'true' part is obviously a mix of factors that countries need to be weighed on.

At this point it's less about pushing the Russia towards a more democratic state, and more about arresting the on-going slide away from democracy.

I could agree with that. Russia certainly has become less democratic in recent years.

You make the valid point that the definition of homicide is different in different countries and then proceed to use tertiary education levels as evidence that Russia has a well-educated population without reflecting over whether the quality of said education matters or not. I know there's a huge issue with "bought" degrees in Turkey; considering the rampant corruption in Russia how much trust can be put in a Russian degree? I genuinely know little of the state of Russian education, which is why I ask.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
You make the valid point that the definition of homicide is different in different countries and then proceed to use tertiary education levels as evidence that Russia has a well-educated population without reflecting over whether the quality of said education matters or not. I know there's a huge issue with "bought" degrees in Turkey; considering the rampant corruption in Russia how much trust can be put in a Russian degree? I genuinely know little of the state of Russian education, which is why I ask.

Education always was the pride of the Soviet Union. The education system they set up was revolutionary and far ahead of its time. It achieved turning Russia from an almost completely illiterate nation of farmers into a spacefaring, nuclear-armed nation with 99% literacy in the span of a few decades. It spawned a huge number of talented scientists, artists and writers. The educational system is one of the few good things Russia inherited from the Soviets. Science and education had always been primary issues in their policies and played a huge role in the Soviet worldview.
From personal experience, I can say that the Russian educational system is much more harsh and thorough than most Western educational systems (or at least, the ones that I am familiar with). It is much more competitive and I think it can probably be better compared to Asian educational systems than European ones in terms of mentality. Requirements for academic degrees also tend to be more severe than in many places in the West.

But don't take my word for it. Russia is consistently ranked among the best countries in regard to education. Pearson has the Russian educational system ranked as the 8th best in Europe and 13th best in the world, Bloomberg last year ranked it as the 6th best in the world. Russia is also the 6th most popular destination for foreign students.

With the amount of corruption, I am pretty sure it'd be possible to buy a degree if you have enough money. But this does not seem to be a large-scale problem. If you have a degree but not the skills and knowledge, people will find out the truth soon enough, which would ruin your life more than any other kind of corruption. Education in Russia is serious business. Buying degrees does not seem to be a big problem.

It should be noted though that there can be large (regional) differences in education standards in Russia. Some institutions, especially those in large cities, are much better than others. This means it can be hard to get good education in the more remote parts of the country.
Also, personally I have to say I prefer the Dutch educational system over the Russian one. The Russian system may be great for driving students to excel, it is also very harsh, severe and overly focused on grades (and a major reason why Russia has one of the world's highest rates of suicide among young people). That is why I decided to go for an university here in the Netherlands rather than in Russia. Studying here is a lot more fun (and here I can still pass tests without actually studying ). Also, the Netherlands usually ranks comparable or even higher than Russia in education, so their laid-back approach must be working somehow.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
You will also get in trouble when you make enemies out of the wrong people who are able to expose your corruption.

This is what I just explained to you. I really love it when people try to debate my point by repeating it back at me.

Violence is more than murder rates.

Then we can use assault. In Russia it is three times more common per 100,000 people than in the US.

Murder rates are also hard to compare between different legal systems because they often have different definitions or keep statistics differently.

This is a line that comes up repeatedly on the internet, but its nonsense. There is extensive work done to align the stats in different countries. And even when not controlled for, those variances amount for a couple of percent one way or another, they can’t be used to dismiss the reality that one country’s rate of offense is 2.4 times higher than the other.

That does not hold up. Russia has in fact a very high level of education.

You are right that education in Russia is high. But note that I listed four factors, that in general drive violent crime, as an explanation for why despite the gun proliferation the US still has a murder rate much closer to the rest of the developed world that it does places with lower wealth and weaker institutions. In Russia education isn’t one of the factors that drives the murder rate up, but corruption, police ineffectiveness, and poverty are definitely factors.

Russia also lacks extreme poverty (extreme poverty in my mind is not being able to satisfy basic needs) even though it has some pretty appalling poverty overall

Your personal definition is quite meaningless. What has meaning is poverty that leads to crime, meaning long term unemployment and very minimal levels of material wealth, that make crime a far more likely choice. There’s no sensible argument that that doesn’t apply to Russia.

even though it has some pretty appalling poverty overall and police and courts aren't noticeably less effective than in other developed countries

I’m not going to do all the work for you. Russia’s police clearance rates are well below other developed countries.

Also when you compare it to a country like Finland, which is very affluent has a very good reputation in regards to it education system you will see that Finland still has a higher murder rate (2.5) than countries that are much poorer such as Serbia (1.3) or Greece (1.1). Similarly, Russia is much wealthier than Moldova, yet still has a much higher homicide rate. While economic and educational conditions certainly play a role, they do not tell the whole story. Other, cultural things like the amount of alcohol consumption can also play a huge role (which it certainly does in the cases of Finland and Russia).

The existence of outliers doesn’t mean there is no pattern. But you are right that culture also plays a part.

With the inclusion of culture in to the reasons why a country might be more violent, then hopefully now we can acknowledge that Russia is more violent than the US, and your earlier assertion was mistaken.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
You make the valid point that the definition of homicide is different in different countries and then proceed to use tertiary education levels as evidence that Russia has a well-educated population without reflecting over whether the quality of said education matters or not. I know there's a huge issue with "bought" degrees in Turkey; considering the rampant corruption in Russia how much trust can be put in a Russian degree? I genuinely know little of the state of Russian education, which is why I ask.

There’s also not much value in comparing tertiary education rates. The number of people who graduate highschool, but don’t go to uni and that drives them violent crime is pretty negligible. Highschool graduation matters more, primary school education matters even more, and so does rates of literacy and numeracy. Both Russia and the US are pretty much at the 99.9% for the last three, and very high for highschool graduation as well. IronCaptain is right that education is not a driving factor in crime in Russia, my only dispute with him on that one is that I never said it was.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
With the amount of corruption, I am pretty sure it'd be possible to buy a degree if you have enough money. But this does not seem to be a large-scale problem. If you have a degree but not the skills and knowledge, people will find out the truth soon enough, which would ruin your life more than any other kind of corruption. Education in Russia is serious business. Buying degrees does not seem to be a big problem.

A Russian diploma in any field is usually well respected here, the people carrying them well-trained professionals.

I remember two recent cases of people caught working as medical doctors in Finland without all the necessary (real) papers. At least one of them had enough real medical education that he managed to pull it off for ten years as a general practitioner. They both had arranged documents and diplomas from respected St Petersburg schools, but those were professional (Russian) forgeries instead of any kind of bought degree.

 jmurph wrote:

Steelmage99 wrote:

xraytango wrote:

Also from what I can gather their stance on blood is from the Bible and not just some weird thing someone came up with.

To a lot of people that is a distinction without a difference.

Yeah, religious freedom is not about justifying the beliefs of any given faith, but allowing people to worship (or not) as they see fit. Now, there are always going to be limits, but the trend in Western democracies has been against religious persecution. Russia has shown that they are perfectly willing to go after a religious minority that they view as insufficiently Russian.

Trying to justify it under vague laws that basically allow authorities to brand any non sanctioned religions as "cults" or "extremists" shows just how little one values individual liberties and are willing to accept authoritarianism under the guise of protecting one's culture. But don't be terribly surprised when more progressive commentators point out that rounding up small groups of ethnic and religious minorities is indicative of totalitarian practices and usually doesn't end well.

Of course, there are plenty in the US that would love to do the same thing. Fortunately, we still have some safeguards that work to limit such governmental actions.

Well in the US, they are actually for religious persecution and have done it throughout their entire history. With a new rise in persecution against muslims with the anti islam laws being enacted, and the right to discriminate laws "protection of religion". With one version of anti sharia law being so vague it actually prohibits christianity as well. (I'm not sure if it passed or not, I forget the state that tried it, so ya I know, citation needed I'm just don't care enough right now to look it up) they didn't want to single out the religion by name, so they went with banning all middle eastern religions And let's not forget bush Sr telling all atheists to get out. And just the outrage and calls for laws to keep immigants out of certain states, I'll believe the US has finally reached a point of non persecuting being the norm, when a student can start an muslim, atheist or lgbtq after school club, like the christians have, without getting nationwide death threats.

As far as all western nations, as the UK, denmark, poland, sweden, have banned halal meats with holland considering it. Now what could the purpose of this ban be? It's not your usual persecution, but it's definitely a you're not welcome here sign.

On the topic at hand though, I'm not sure where the incompatibilities between russia and the JW are. the medical issue seems suspect I married an X JW, her parents are still involved, and her dad just had a triple bypass recently. Others who know a surgery is coming up can store their own blood in the hospital to be used during the surgery. They also celbrate national holidays, just not religious ones. So thanksgiving is in, xmas is out.

My question really is, can anyone who is in, or closer to Russia explain this??

We do not consider them a religious organization, but a fraudulent one. In addition, foreign one.
I talked to "witnesses" on the street many times and they really used the methods of scammers.

sirlynchmob wrote:


As far as all western nations, as the UK, denmark, poland, sweden, have banned halal meats with holland considering it. Now what could the purpose of this ban be? It's not your usual persecution, but it's definitely a you're not welcome here sign.

I'm pretty sure those bannings are less anti-islam as they are anti-cruelty to animals (or pro-animal rights if you prefer).

sirlynchmob wrote:


As far as all western nations, as the UK, denmark, poland, sweden, have banned halal meats with holland considering it. Now what could the purpose of this ban be? It's not your usual persecution, but it's definitely a you're not welcome here sign.

There is no ban on halal meat in Sweden, you just have to follow the same anti-animal cruelty laws like anybody else.

sirlynchmob wrote:


As far as all western nations, as the UK, denmark, poland, sweden, have banned halal meats with holland considering it. Now what could the purpose of this ban be? It's not your usual persecution, but it's definitely a you're not welcome here sign.

The UK has not banned Halal meat.
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/halal-and-kosher-slaughter

The ban in Poland was overturned.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-30412551

The "ban" in Denmark merely made it necessary for Halal and Kosher meat to come from animals who had been stunned prior to slaughter.

According to thebUK Food Standards Agency, ~84% of all Halal meat in the UK comes from animals who were stunned prior to slaughter. So obviously stunning is not against religious rules, so long as the act of stunning the animal does not kill it.