Jehovah’s Witnesses: We Don’t Know What Hulyaka Is Pointing At


Jehovah’s witnesses do not make any comments on the statments of the Plenipotentiary for religions Leanid Hulyaka about their activities. The religious association of Jehovah’s witnesses hadn’t receive any complaints from the Belarusian government.

“We consider it wrong to comment on Leanid Hulyaka’s words because we do not know neither the context of his statment nor the facts he is pointing at, – stated the chairman of the Religious association of Jehovah’s witnesses in the Republic of Belarus Paval Yadlouski in his interview to Krynica.inf0. – Besides, the Plenipotentiary for religions hadn’t contacted our representatives for more than two years”. Yadlouski also pointed out that Jehovah’s witnesses are law-abiding citizens of Belarus and that respect for authorities is a part of their Bible-based doctrine.

According to the chairman of the association, he would put “all possible effort to fix the situation” if he had been provided with any concrete complaints, warnings or fines. “But the only warning we received was the one made by a misunderstanding to one of 27 our communities: the officials failed to notice output data on an invitation leaflet spread not by the community but by an individual”, – Yadlouski clarified.

To observe Belarusian laws Jehovah’s witnesses send all their religious literature for a state examination. “According to the resolution of a the Expert Council, the contents of this literature do not contradict the law”, – stressed the head of the association.

Paval Yadlouski also shared with his thoughts on the possible causes of the statement: “Perhaps ther are citizens governed by unknown motives who file complaints to the authorities about the existence of Jehovah’s witnesses itself”. But the head of the association asks the authorities to remember the basic law: “The Constitution of Belarus protects the multiformity of views, freedom of consciousness and religion, that is why we are sure that our freedom in Belarus won’ be limited without substantial reasons”.

03.02.2016 Society| Tags: ,