The right to shun

Simon

Many people are understandably upset and angry at the notion that JWs have the right to shun people. It seems such an obvious "no brainer" cruel and inhuman thing to do - it must be wrong ... surely?

Of course we look at things from the perspective of those hurt and harmed by shunning. But however much it pains me to say it, and speaking as someone who has suffered from having to shun his father and now be shunned by his mother and siblings ... there is simply no way on earth that shunning will ever be ruled "illegal" as far as I can see,

Everyone has to have the right to shun people. There is simply no way on earth that the opposite can be legislated for.

Just think about it ... how would it work?

Would it mean the government would force people to talk to others they didn't want to? How would that even work? Who would it extend to? Immediate family? Extended family? People you've worked with? Anyone you grew up with?

How about a family that doesn't want anything to do with the weird uncle that hugs the kids waaaaay to long?

Would the creepy guy be able to insist that the group of cute girls couldn't ignore him?

It's very easy to look at something like shunning and come up with reasons why it's bad and shouldn't be allowed. But think of it in terms of legislation, laws and enforcement by people with no skin in the game. What would the rules be to prevent it? How would they actually be worded and enacted?

If we can't think of a way to create a rule that wouldn't drag millions of regular people in or have the government suddenly the arbitrator of each and every family dispute then how do we expect other people to do so?

I think it's great to highlight the cruelty that shunning by high-control-groups inflicts but it's unrealistic to suggest that it should be outlawed because that is simply an unrealistic expectation and a waste of effort and energy.

The people who do the shunning often do it for the best of intentions. They think they are going to save us.

The thing to focus on is convincing them they they are not going to and are simply hurting us and themselves.

I know that's a tough cookie to swallow but I think it's the truth. What do you think?

Xanthippe

I think not only is it impossible to legislate against as you say but it is also a deep-seated human instinct to stop talking to people you believe are toxic.

The ancient Greeks used the otracon, pieces of broken pottery on which a person's name would be scratched that were then counted up to see how many have voted to banish a person. If the vote was unfavourable the individual would be exiled for ten years from Athens. It's where we get the word ostracise from.

The WTS are cruelly exploiting and abusing an ancient and instinctive human response to perceived threat from other humans. I agree the thing to focus on is to convince our loved ones we are not dangerous and they are not going to save us by shunning because we are never coming back!

Mickey mouse

What could and should be legislated against is an organisation, and particularly one with tax free status, dictating who should be shunned. Furthermore the threat of being shunned if you don't shun another individual should also be outlawed.

Shunning of one individual by another should be a personal choice not mandated by a corporation.

EdenOne

In Europe there's an interesting development in the non-discrimination legislation. While at the moment it only applies in the context of employment, it's in the works being extended to other areas. It's the concept of 'instruction to discriminate'. If an institution of any kind instructs its members / affiliates / students to discriminate based on, among other things, religion and belief, that in itself will be considered a crime. It is an easy thing to demonstrate that shunning an ex-JW is a differentiated treatment than that given to a 'wordly' person who was never a JW, and, therefore, discrimination. The crime is considered to be perpetrated indirectly, that is, by the institution that is teaching or instructing to discriminate.

Eden

disposable hero of hypocrisy

At least the otracon was only for ten years. A kid could get df'd for smoking at 17, quit at 18, and still live the rest of his life without his family ever talking to him again.

Mickey mouse hit the nail on the head. Avoiding toxic people is natural, but it must be personal, not mandated by a real estate corporation.

Jeffro

Simon:

Everyone has to have the right to shun people. There is simply no way on earth that the opposite can be legislated for.

Whilst it is extraordinarily unlikely that legislation would be introduced to ban shunning, it is entirely possible to introduce legislation that prevents organisations from directing its members to shun people.

JWs shun because they are told to.

stuckinarut2

Good thread, but as others have said the issue is NOT whether an INDIVIDUAL chooses to ignore or shun someone for their own valid reasons.

The REAL issue is that MOST in the org who will shun someone will do it NOT because that person has done anything to them to deserve it, but because they have been TOLD to do so by the organization.

They leave their own logical thinking behind, and give over the decision making to others...and will not question anything!

Tornintwo

Mickey mouse said it all - its the organisational encouragement of shunning, even within families, even shunning of vulnerable young people by close family members - by a CHARITY. This has got to a problem area for any charity watchdog.

Diogenesister

In Europe there's an interesting development in the non-discrimination legislation. While at the moment it only applies in the context of employment, it's in the works being extended to other areas. It's the concept of 'instruction to discriminate'. If an institution of any kind instructs its members / affiliates / students to discriminate based on, among other things, religion and belief, that in itself will be considered a crime. It is an easy thing to demonstrate that shunning an ex-JW is a differentiated treatment than that given to a 'wordly' person who was never a JW, and, therefore, discrimination. The crime is considered to be perpetrated indirectly, that is, by the institution that is teaching or instructing to discriminate.

Edenone This is really interesting. I guess it could be classed as discrimination due to religon/belief system. As Mickeymouse mentioned, almost impossible to legislate on an individual basis but do-able when it comes to organizations that instruct its members to shun. Certainly it could be used as a reason to take away an organizations charitable statu - as is being talked about with regard to orgs that lack good child protection practices.

username

Propaganda is a powerful tool. The watchtower know this to be effective, therefore they use the fear of an evil entity that may or may not exist to inculcate the rank and file into believing anyone who leaves the "truth" are demon possessed.

Get someone to believe good and evil exists in the form of invisible spirit entities then you have them.

Unfortunately this does not address the issue that their are certain amounts of good and evil in all of us, it's how we control the dark side we have that determines whether we go on to be murderers or a decent member of society. I don't go for "it must have been a demonic force that made that person murder all those people" it takes responsibility away from the person who committed those evil acts.

The watchtower uses such propaganda to take the responsibility away from them, when in fact it is the watch Tower who made this "law" to protect from anyone who knows the real truth about the organization. The rank and file are essentially victims to the propaganda and most of the time cannot be blamed for something that is constantly drummed into the rank and file.

The right to shun - wrong?