Yes, it is illegal according to the Declaration; however, governments can sign to support only certain parts of the Declaration.
Is punishing someone for changing their religion against international law
by ldrnomo 26 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
Justitia Themis
More info: I contacted a friend, Turan Kayaoglu, who is an expert on the subject. If you doubt my claim, Google his name. :)
This is my email to him: Hello Turan: A friend of mine (he used to be a Jehovah's Witness also) posted this question on a discussion board. I would appreciate your opinion. I am correct in understanding that Article 18.2 is referring to governmental coercion and state legal (penal) sanctions?
Turan's response: (Keep in mind his first language is Turkish) I agree with you. There are two issues. First, (as you point out) most of human rights documents are about securing individual rights vis-a-vis to state and its agencies. When it says "coercion" it means the coercion used by state agencies (the only legitimate agency to use coercion). If family members or friends use coercion, that's by definition is illegitimate. Second, looking at one right and taking a right to its logical exteremes is not acceptable. Rights in international human rights are indivisible; they are balanced with each other. Religious rights are balanced other rights. For example, think about the freedom of speech: you cannot insitigate violance and claim you are using your free speech right. Similarly, you cannot deny others (the family and friends) rights. They have a "right" not to see you or associate with you. The exact boundaries of these rights, of course, are contested. It is not usually clear who these rights are adjudicated. For example the US and EU adjudicate differently on the issue of freedeom of speech and protection from a hate speech. Having said that, I think few people will interpret the citation like your friend and taking it to its logical exteremes to claim that my family and friends are committing a legally identifiable crime by not communicating with me. Everyone has a "right" to see or not to see others. Good luck tomorrow on your
-
treadnh2o
Wow!
A sensible quote without an agenda.
Nice post JT
-
Gordy
European Union Charter of Fundamental Rights
Article 10. Freedom of thought, conscience and religion
Definition
Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This right includes the freedom to change religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or in private, to manifest religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance. The right to conscientious objection is recognised, in accordance with the national laws governing the exercise of this right.
Legal Explanations
The right guaranteed in paragraph 1 corresponds to the right guaranteed in Article 9 of the ECHR and, in accordance with Article 52(3) of the Charter, has the same meaning and scope. Limitations must therefore respect Article 9(2) of the Convention, which reads as follows: "Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others
-
DT
"Turan's response: (Keep in mind his first language is Turkish) I agree with you. There are two issues. First, (as you point out) most of human rights documents are about securing individual rights vis-a-vis to state and its agencies."
I'm not sure if that applies to this case. Here is a quote from article 2 of that covenant. "Each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes to respect and to ensure to all individuals within its territory and subject to its jurisdiction the rights recognized in the present Covenant,"
If I understand this correctly, the country must not only respect these rights (by not violating them). They must also ensure these rights. It sounds to me like they have to take steps to insure that others within that country also don't violate them. It also says in article 2, "Where not already provided for by existing legislative or other measures, each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes to take the necessary steps. in accordance with its constitutional processes and with the provisions of the present Covenant, to adopt such legislative or other measures as may be necessary to give effect to the rights recognized in the present Covenant."
Once again it sounds like they have to ensure these rights, not just refrain from violating them. It also says, "Each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes: To ensure that any person whose rights or freedoms as herein recognized are violated shall have an effective remedy, notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity"
It sounds like it applies to everyone, not just those acting in an official capacity. That is listed as a possibility, but
there is nothing to indicate that is the only situation that applies. I'm not a lawyer and I know that legal terms can differ
from how they are commonly used, but I have a hard time seeing that this covenant only applies to human rights violations that are actually caused by the government."When it says "coercion" it means the coercion used by state agencies (the only legitimate agency to use coercion)."
I don't understand what he means by this. Is there anything in the covenant to indicate this? In the United States, coercion can also refer to the actions of those not representing the government.
"Second, looking at one right and taking a right to its logical extremes is not acceptable. Rights in international human rights are indivisible; they are balanced with each other."
I agree and that is where it becomes tricky. The question should be asked of what are the limits of the Watchtower Society's rights when they conflict with other human rights. I have no problem with individuals exercising their right to choose who to associate with. I do have a problem with a large corporation using threats and intimidation to interfere with an individual's right to freely exercise the religion of his choice. I don't know of any court case where this issue was properly explored. I'm not convinced that a reasonable court would favor the corporation over the individual.
"Having said that, I think few people will interpret the citation like your friend and taking it to its logical exteremes to claim that my family and friends are committing a legally identifiable crime by not communicating with me."
I agree. It would be absurd to interpret it that way. However, I believe the situation is different for an organization that uses enforced shunning as a control technique and a way to prevent people from exercising their freedom of religion.
-
passwordprotected
bttt
-
Finally-Free
If the only reason someone associates with me is because the law tells them they don't have a choice in the matter, then thanks but no thanks. I'm not that desperate.
W