MCLEANS SEXTUPLETS AND BLOOD ARTICLE - SCANNED COPY FOR YOU

by hawkaw 62 Replies latest watchtower medical

• 

  skeeter1

  Due Process. Due process can be a minefield, and there are different types of due process.

  In the US, it can mean as little as the Dept. of Health official making a quick determination ..... to a full blown court hearing. In the US, the application of "due process rights" can depend on whether the govenrment is trying to take away a whole group's rights (no prisoner can marry) versus an individual (these JW parents). Becuase we are dealing with an individual, it's called "procedural due process." The general test is a balancing test - would the cost of the Government delay be very great if Parents were allowed hearings prior to the denial of the benefit. What would be the damage to the Parents if they were denied a full benefit?"

  In some places in the US, a judge will not rule "ahead of time/emergency", as the issue is not "ripe" (legal term). So, perhaps the Canadian judges would not rule ahead of time in this situation. I do not know .

  If doctors/health officials thought time was of the essence (such that babies would have died or suffered set backs), the cost of delaying a hearing in order to grant the parents their right to a hearing, would likely have been too great. Second, what would have been the damage if the parents were denied their hearing? They would not have had their say in court, but would it have mattered anyway? I think not.

  So, if this were in the US and in front of a jurisdiction that would not rule on the matter before it was ripe, I can see where the Dept of Children had to "swoop" in and make a quick determination. And, this determination would likely be legal.

  Skeeter
• 

  hawkaw

  Page 377 of the Supreme decision ( link above) may be a kick in dough boy's stones.

  The appellants attack the general procedure under the Child Welfare Act, and in particular the specific way in which it was carried out in the present case. As for the constitutionality of the procedure under the Act, there is no need to discuss it at length, since I am of the opinion that the scheme designed by the legislature accords with the principles of fundamental justice. The parents must receive reasonable notice of the hearing in which their rights might be affected. "Reasonable" is a flexible criterion that permits adjustments to different situations. While it is possible to hold a wardship hearing without notice in situations of emergency, s. 28(11) of the Act provides that the wardship order cannot, in the absence of another hearing with notice, exceed 30 days. In B.C.G.E.U. v. British Columbia (Attorney General), [1988] 2 S.C.R. 214 , this Court held that an injunction granted ex parte did not violate s. 7 of the Charter. That case differs from the present one, but its underlying proposition holds true: the procedural requirements of the principles of fundamental justice can be attenuated when urgent and unusual circumstances require expedited court action.
• 

  kwintestal

  may be a kick in dough boy's stones.

  I think you're right Hawkaw. The government could argue that they were respecting the wishes of the family and would continue to do so however it got to the point of no return and so they had to act, and act immediately. After all, they only took custody of the 3 and not all 4 surviving children. That WILL look good for them.

  Kwin
• 

  Poztate

  Great scans and THANKS for posting them. I had heard that Mcleans had put out a hard hitting article but this is even better than I imagined.

  I hope lots of people in Canada and around the world can see this article since it exposes the WTBTS so well
• 

  Handsome Dan

  It will bring forth light to the public in just how dehumanizing this religious cult really is !

  Thank you Macleans
• 

  johnny cip

  bttt
• 

  Handsome Dan

  It is estimated that one hundred jw's die every year around the globe for the simply reason of not taking an transfusion, an awful shame in a human sense.

  Does it not seem scripturally correct to heal somebody when they are sick, Jesus did it when he came upon a sick person.

  The bible says to respect life as if it was your own and Jesus's greatest commandment above all was to love one another !

  Walk in his footsteps if you are to please god and so on..........

  I hardly think by taking in blood from another person in an effort to heal them would be displeasing to god in a biblical sense, you can still respect the

  sacredness of blood in it's meaning and give blood to heal and at the same time keep true to biblical guidelines.

  The abstaining law was handed out to the people then at a time when the religious leaders thought the people were disrespecting the use of it.

  Perhaps they were drinking it, and there is written history to support that. Perhaps they were dying their cloths with it or even painting with it,

  but given the human social mindset at that particular time of history one can only imagine.

  The WTS will never change their policy on blood transfusions and I mean never. All jw's know by now that many of their chosen flock have perished due to not taking a transfusion.

  If this was to change abruptly the damaging effect would be too weakening to their power structure and they certaintly wouldn't take a chance at that.

  All the best to everyone and keep smiling
• 

  hawkaw

  BTTT
• 

  5go

  FASTEST GROWING RELIGION IN NORTH AMERICA MY ASS !

  The mormons and pentecostals should be up in arms along with the muslims. They manange above 3% growth JW's haven't had that in a decade.
• 

  hawkaw

  BTTT