Russia: Witnesses a terrorist group

Originally posted by FMF
Answering a charge of assault in court and asserting your human rights in court are two completely different matters.

the principle is the same, tell us why he should be concerned with how his case effects the outcome of others? If you cannot then your question is once again nonsensical.

Originally posted by FMF
You haven't answered the question as to whether you believe it is a human right to worship and congregate freely.

We are engaged in a legal struggle. Last time i will say it.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
the principle is the same, tell us why he should be concerned with how his case effects the outcome of others? If you cannot then your question is once again nonsensical.

It's surely part of a broader resistance to and rejection of the Russian government restricting or ignoring the rights of minority groups, or even persecuting them, isn't it now?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
We are engaged in a legal struggle. Last time i will say it.

Do you believe it is a human right to be able to worship and congregate freely?

Originally posted by FMF
It's surely part of a broader resistance to and rejection of the Russian government restricting or ignoring the rights of minority groups, or even persecuting them, isn't it now?

Is it? well its your narrative and you are free to make it up you as you go along.

Originally posted by FMF
Do you believe it is a human right to be able to worship and congregate freely?

A human right? I don't know. It might be.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Is it? well its your narrative and you are free to make it up you as you go along.

Do you not see what is happening to your group as being part of a pattern in which the Russian government is restricting the rights of its citizens?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
A human right? I don't know. It might be.

If the law in Russia says the JWs are a proscribed group then that is the legal reality: why would the JWs mount a legal struggle against the law in Russia if not to assert and protect what they believe are the rights of their members?

Originally posted by FMF
It's surely part of a broader resistance to and rejection of the Russian government restricting or ignoring the rights of minority groups, or even persecuting them, isn't it now?

Actually you will need to be corrected again.

On March 15, Russia's Justice Ministry filed a claim with the country's Supreme Court, calling on it to designate the Administrative Center of Jehovah's Witnesses in Russia an "extremist" organization and liquidate the group's national headquarters and 395 local chapters in Russia.

Its not a 'broader resistance to and rejection of the Russian government restricting or ignoring the rights of minority groups' - thats a pile of old croc. Its a response to a legal action brought against Jehovahs Witnesses by the Russian government not some ideological crusade that you made up.

Originally posted by FMF
If the law in Russia says the JWs are a proscribed group then that is the legal reality: why would the JWs mount a legal struggle against the law in Russia if not to assert and protect what they believe are the rights of their members?

Please see the above post. It may help you if you did some research prior to entering debate and it would save you from forming silly questions which have little basis in anything other than your imagination.

Originally posted by FMF
Do you not see what is happening to your group as being part of a pattern in which the Russian government is restricting the rights of its citizens?

Difficult to say without doing some research.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Its not a 'broader resistance to and rejection of the Russian government restricting or ignoring the rights of minority groups' - thats a pile of old croc.

Why did you leave words out of my sentence when you quoted it?

I said "It's surely part of a broader resistance to and rejection of the Russian government restricting or ignoring the rights of minority groups". I did not say that the JW actions was a broader resistance, I suggested it is part of a a broader resistance. But you quoted only a part of my sentence.

Originally posted by FMF
Why did you leave words out of my sentence when you quoted it?

I said "It's surely part of a broader resistance to and rejection of the Russian government restricting or ignoring the rights of minority groups". I did not say that the JW actions was a broader resistance, I suggested it is part of a a broader resistance. But you quoted only a part of my sentence.

Sure pedantry is always useful, but not so much this time.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Its a response to a legal action brought against Jehovahs Witnesses by the Russian government not some ideological crusade that you made up.

So you do not see the JW legal action in Russia as them seeking to assert the right to have a national headquarters and to have 395 local chapters around the country?

Originally posted by FMF
Why did you leave words out of my sentence when you quoted it?

I said "It's surely part of a broader resistance to and rejection of the Russian government restricting or ignoring the rights of minority groups". I did not say that the JW actions was a broader resistance, I suggested it is part of a a broader resistance. But you quoted only a part of my sentence.

Now you are blubbering gibberish.