Religious discrimination / judicial precedents?

by Narkissos 12 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Narkissos

  In the context of a current European court trial, I?m trying to collect some international jurisprudential information.

  Apparently the WT instructions about DF?d or DA?d people (involving shunning by relatives and personal friends) can be legally questioned on the basis of the existing laws against religious discrimination.

  On the other side, the WT might plead that, since its discipline rules are based on an interpretation of Bible texts, they are protected by the principle of liberty of conscience.

  My question is: do you know of decisions by US or other courts on religious discrimination involving UN instructions, such as:

  (1) 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, article 18 :

  Everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This right shall include freedom to have a religion or whatever belief of his [her] choice.

  (2) 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, article 18 :

  1. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This right shall include freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his [her] choice, and freedom either individually or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his [her] religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching.
  2. No one shall be subject to coercion which would impair his [her] freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his [her] choice.
  3. Freedom to manifest one?s religion or belief may be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary to protect public safety, order, health, morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others.
  4. The States Parties to the present Covenant undertake to have respect for the liberty of parents and, when applicable, legal guardians, to ensure the religious and moral education of their children in conformity with their own convictions.

  (3) 1981 Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief, article 4, declaring

  that all States [including all sectors of civil society] shall take effective measures to prevent and eliminate discrimination based on religion or belief through:
  · Actions in all fields of civil, economic, political, social, cultural life;
  · Enacting or rescinding legislation where necessary to prohibit such discrimination;
  · Taking all appropriate measures to combat intolerance based on religion or belief.

  Cf. http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/edumat/studyguides/religion.html

  References welcome.

  Thanks,

  Narkissos
• 

  Max Divergent

  that all States [including all sectors of civil society] shall take effective measures to prevent and eliminate discrimination based on religion or belief through:
  · Actions in all fields of civil, economic, political, social, cultural life;

  So the declaration applies to SOCIAL as well as ecomonic (like employment etc) life... Still, how do you legislate to prevent people being barred by religious dictate from talking to each other in a social context? Also, w hat interest does the state have in how religious comunities interact socially? It's hard enough to get anti-descrimination legislation on economic matters!

  DOH!!! Haven't we just gone to war over how religious communites interact? Isn't that the main casue of war? Hate manifested through strict interpritation of religious doctrine has it's ultimate expression in murder and terrorism, and that's certainly an area of life that government's have an interest in...

  My wife said somthing interesting about her (former) level of belief in the JW's a while ago. She said that if she'd been asked to do a suicide bombing for the Congo, then there's a possibility she might have. I know she's not the only one who could consider such extreme acts.

  I really do beleive there that if someone chose to and succeded in misusing the congregations, that there is the potential amongst some Witnesses to commit murder and acts terrorism on behalf of the organisation.

  I think it's unlikley and improbable, but not impossible - these people are trained to exercise z eal and are taught that destruction and killing are part of God's Plan - it's just the belief that god does the killing and not the people that holds them back - and that's easily subjected to secret 'New Light' for a special form of secret 'full time service'.

  They've felt the need before to publish in The Watchtower that Witnesses are not to kill opposers and apostates.

  Just my thoughts...
• 

  Amazing

  I specifically deal in the areas of descrimination. In the USA, the courts do not apply any UN rules and regulations. Although, in recent court decisions, they have reviewed certain international court decisions for any case law they might find useful.

  The US Constitution has specifically prohibited Congress or the States from allowing any descrimination based on race, creed, color, ethnic or national origin, age, or sex. Some states have added prohibitions against sexual orientation, familial status, etc.

  When it comes to the "practice" of religion under the First Amendment vs individual religious freedom, the Courts (I am not sure of any Supreme Court decision) have either ruled in favor of religious freedom for the religious body over the rights of the individual, or have refused to hear a case. Whereas if the issue involves the freedom to leave a religion and join another, then the individual wins every time ... but the individual cannot then turn around and impose upon the rights of the religion they left. The courts have tried to respect the rights of both.

  In cases where religions have descriminated in employment, such as a Mormon or Baptist Contractor only hiring people of their religion while not hiring those of other religions, the offended individual will win if they can prove they were discriminated against, and if they can show that the project they would have worked on was not directly for the church ... e.g. a church school, or an exclusive job where they are employed directly by the church. But, it is very hard to prove, and most people just give up and look for work elsewhere.

  In the housing world, the USA has what is called "Fair Housing" laws. It is here where the rights of the individual win out hands down ... except in cases where it is a special religious retirement community, or a religious convent or housing for religious clerics. For example, I cannot demand that the Watchtower allow me to live at one of their Bethel homes. But if the Watchtower owned an apartment building as an investment, then they would have to allow non-JWs to live there, or face severe Fair Housing enforcement and severe civil suit for violations of civil rights laws.

  Love and affection, as it pertains to parental rights: Many states have laws protecting the individual parent's custodial and visitation rights. For example, in Illinois, if a JW parent attempts to discriminate against the non-JW parent and interfere with custodial or visitation rights, they have committed a felony for which they could lose parental rights and go to jail for three years or longer. So, JWs have a much harder time in this state to practice descrimination.

  Again, however, no court in the USA applies or rules on any case internal to a State Court or any Federal Court using UN rules and regulations. The US only complies with UN laws when dealing with other nations, and then only when it serves the interests of, or is convenient to the USA. The UN is not highly valued in the USA, except by certain minority, and never in the courts. But as noted above, that is starting to change ... however, it will be years before UN law really begins to have any influence over American jurisprudence in any meaningful fashion.
• 

  Narkissos

  Thank you very much for your answers.

  Amazing, your information is exactly what we needed. (Btw, do you really live in France?)

  If someone has heard of similar or different court case material, in the US or elsewhere, I'd still be glad to know.
• 

  Amazing

  Hi Nark,

  No, I don't live in France, although I have always wanted to visit France. My mother spoke fluent French, and I can read some French when studying technical papers, such as that produced by C.E.R.N., the French equivalent of the US Nuclear regulatory Commission. In prior posting, I used to use the Egyptian flag, then recently decided upon the French flag to honor the French President's decision to support lifting UN sanctions upon Iraq. While France has every right to debate and disagree with the USA ... and they should if they feel the US is wrong ... they should allow Iraq to now enjoy free economic flow. And, to the credit of France, they did agree to the lifting of sanctions.

  I am glad that the earlier post was helpful. One other thing you can do to find out more is to search the US Supreme court "Slip Decisions" on their web site ... in fact, you can search ALL US Supreme Court decisions there ... and you may discover some cases where UN case law or the European Union Court was at least considered recent decisions ... but I don't believe that you will find any case where the US Supreme Court would have applied UN or European law, as they are only chartered to apply what is in the US Constitution.
• 

  Narkissos

  Amazing,

  Thanks for the tip. In fact, the US policy seems to be consistently more protective of "religious freedom" (i.e., freedom of the cults vs. freedom of the individual) than, say, French or German policy. The annual State Department report on religious freedom regularly criticizes European decisions in such matters.

  Hope we can discuss that in a Parisian "bistrot" (bar) someday.

  And bttt in case somebody has got further information.
• 

  heathen

  The WT publishing corporation believes it's authority to act on it's rules comes from God . What any state or government officials have to say about it makes no difference to them .
• 

  Narkissos

  Heathen, you're right -- until the WT is called before a court...
• 

  Narkissos

  A further though related question: a few weeks ago I've seen a thread on this site about the WT adapting its policy concerning data on DF'd or DA'd persons to a recent (1998?) UK law protecting privacy. Is somebody able to locate it? I've tried the search function and didn't find it...
• 

  jgnat

  Where to get slips:

  http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/03slipopinion.html

  Village of Stratton
  http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/17jun20021100/www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/01pdf/00-1737.pdf
  (WTBTS wins)

  Virginia vs Hicks
  http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/02pdf/02-371.pdf
  (in favour of WTBTS, amicus curiae)

  Intresting that Hicks does not deny that he had done damage to the property or that he might have been trespassing. The Supreme Court argument was simply if the NO TRESPASSERS rule was overbroad.

  The WTBTS defends the rights of this petty thief. Interesting. I wonder why they didn?t profile Hicks in a WT article?

  The Virginia Supreme

  Court, based on its objection to the ? unwritten ? requirement

  that demonstrators and leafleters obtain advance

  permission, declared the entire RRHA trespass policy

  overbroad and void ? including the written rule that those

  who return after receiving a barment notice are subject to

  arrest.