After the application is reviewed by the DPI, the DPI determines for themselves if the NGO meets their criteria or not.That is a separate issue. Both the UN/DPI and the NGO separately agree that NGO meets the acceptance criteria. Otherwise the NGO would not bother to apply -- unless, of course, the NGO was attempting to deceive the DPI into granting it Associated NGO status while knowing full well that it did not meet the criteria. You actually seem to be arguing that the Watchtower engaged in such deception of the DPI. Nevertheless, the DPI's issuance of a letter of acceptance constitutes its acceptance of the NGO's submitted evidence that it meets the criteria, and the NGO's acceptance of the acceptance letter constitutes its acceptance of the DPI's judgment that it meets the criteria.: The NGO does not agree to meet their criteria.Nonsense.
You are partly correct. If an NGO feels like it meets the criteria they ask for an application. If the DPI determines that they do indeed meet their criteria then they send them an application. It is the DPI that makes the final determination. Thus in 1994 it was the DPI that made the determination as to what they themselves meant by 'sharing the ideals of the UN'. In 2001, after the language or wording had changed, they would have made the determination as to what they meant by 'supporting the principles and charter of the UN'. In 1992 they would have made the determination based on the then criteria.
Did they ever mean an NGO must agree with everything the UN does? No, because as Oleg and the woman officer stated NGO's can criticize and even NGO's that dissagree with the UN have registered with the DPI. Does it mean the NGO's must support the UN in everything they do? No, they share their ideals in only the fields which are "in accordance with its own aims and purposes and the nature and scope of its competence and activities.” That is what the UN/ECOSOC has said. The DPI has never said anything different and have apparently even accepted NGO's which dissagree with and criticize them. They accepted the WTS didn't they? The DPI apparently felt that since the WTS shares the ideals of human rights, liberties, and non-discrimination, that they met the criteria.
I did not say that Barry signed a document specifically agreeing to support the U.N.
It is a good thing or you would have shown yourself to be even more of a liar.
I said that he signed an application document, the signing of which is an implicit agreement to support the U.N. Charter, according to all materials given to applicant NGOs by the DPI.
Yes, you did say that and you have not provided that application document. Are you a liar? Where is this promised document? AlanF, is it time to call you a liar. Can you even show us an application that required a signature where Lloyd Barry would have signed his name?
But you know what? I can provide an application for NGOs with the ECOSOC which the WTS did not fill out because they did not apply for association with the ECOSOC. And on that application there is a place for a signature with an agreement of support. Let me show you. http://www.un.org/esa/coordination/ngo/ Click on forms and documents and then click on application in English.
The first page says:
United Nations Nations Unies
NGO SECTION, DESA
1 UN Plaza, Room DC1-1480, New York, NY 10017
tel: (212) 963-8652 / fax: (212) 963-9248
Application for Consultative Status
with the Economic and Social Council
The last page says:
I/we declare that I/we have answered the questions contained in this form to
the best of my/our knowledge.
I/we declare, that if granted consultative status, my/our organization will act
in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and ECOSOC
The undersigned signature/es is/are duly authorized to sign this declaration.
Name(s) and position(s)
Surely if I can find the application for NGOs with the ECOSOC with this agreement on it you can find the application for NGOs with the DPI with the agreement on it. Or at least the application with the place for Lloyd Barry's signature. You have an army of apostates desparately searching for it, don't you? You said that you saw it. Did you? Or are you a bald-face liar? In case anyone is wondering, here is the application for NGO's with the DPI in 1991 according to apostates:
Where is the place for the signature where Lloyd Barry signed his name?
This is part of your never ending stream of strawmen.Nevertheless, as of this writing I cannot find the document that Barry signed, but am working on it.
And AlanF you will never find an original application signed by Barry because it does not exist. You as usual are the one off to see the wizard with your scarecrow strawman.
In any case, both GB member Lloyd Barry and Writing Staff member Ciro Aulicino are listed in the 1999-2000 Directory of NGOs ( http://www.randytv.com/secret/alphalist334.jpg ) as the Watchtower Society's representatives. Furthermore, their names are listed in various earlier documents, along with one Robert Johnson, a high-ranking Service Department official. Where do you think the U.N. got those names?
No kidding. Do you think the WTS has evern denied this. Please take a look at this form and you will see why that is the case. http://www.jehovahsjudgment.co.uk/watchtower-un-ngo/scans/2000accreditationform.html and then read this:
Periodically, the DPI required its NGOs to sign the Accreditation Form to state who its representatives would be — to allow them to gain access to the DPI's extensive facilities at the United Nations in New York.
Here we have a copy of the Accreditation Form as it appeared prior to 2002 — before the renewal process began and before the form was changed to become a renewal application. See the form for yourself at this location. As you can see, this earlier version of the form says nothing about supporting the United Nations. The form is merely there to allow representatives of the NGO to access the DPI's facilities. The form itself clearly states:“This form should be used to confirm your currently accredited representative and/or to authorize newly appointed representatives.”
The form the Society signed each year was obviously not a renewal application. To deny this and continue to insist that they did renew their status each year, would be senseless. Interestingly, also appearing on this earlier form is the following question:“Please indicate your organization's main area(s) of interest (e.g. development, disarmament, religion, environment, human rights, conflict resolution, women, etc.)”
Some apostates have found lists of UN NGOs where the Watchtower Society is listed, complete with items such as “human rights”, and “women” listed as the Society's areas of interest. They have noticed how these areas of interest have changed in the records from time to time. Therefore, they have argued that it “proves” the Society must have annually renewed their NGO membership because the “areas of interest” kept changing. Yet, as we can clearly see from the form, that question did not appear on a yearly renewal form at all — but on the form to get the representatives their access passes.
It is clear, then, that the Watchtower Society did not reapply for it's NGO status each year, and that the Accreditation Form (prior to 2001/2002) which the Society did sign periodically, was simply to state who it's representatives would be along with their areas of interest for accessing the DPI's facilities.
It is also clear that the Watchtower Society was being truthful when it said “At the time of the initial application no signature was required on the form”, and that the forms signed by the Society really did not conflict with Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs. We can see the evidence for ourselves.