Ex-Wife of Canadian JW Attorney Speaks to NATIONAL POST about KIDNAPPING sick JW kids

by AndersonsInfo 33 Replies latest watchtower medical

  • Hopscotch

    Thank you for this Barbara.

    To me the last two paragraphs of this article are so important.

    This statement:"I would say the court needs to re-examine what actually happens when a child is put in this position," is exactly what I believe. The courts need to realize what the real reasons behind a young JW child making this decision are. Do the courts really understand the emotional manipulation that goes on by JW parents and elders towards these young ones? Do the authorities really understand how trapped by the unwanted consequences of saying yes to blood a young JW really is? These young ones really don't have any choice at all, no matter how much they try to make outsiders believe they do.


  • dozy

    Thanks Barbara. Concerning very young children , I think that this is one area where the WTS has changed it's policy somewhat. The brother from the HLC who gave the last talk we had before the WTS stopped them said that "the WTS no longer recommends kidnapping babies".


    However, in Denmark there is one area where feelings have been running high, perhaps more so than in other places. This involves the stand taken by Jehovah’s Witnesses with reference to blood transfusions. This question was dramatically publicized in March 1975, when a young couple took their three-year-old son from the children’s hospital in Copenhagen. They did so because the doctor, in order to administer a blood transfusion against the wishes of the parents, had legal custody taken away from them.

    Knowing that they most likely would be pursued by the police, the parents sought refuge with some of their fellow believers. At the same time, they tried to find a doctor who was willing to treat the child without the use of blood. A national police hunt, with raids, ransacking and border controls, took place. This was accompanied by a veritable persecution campaign in the press, with headlines such as “Child Killers,” “Religious Fanatics” and “Cynical Parents.” Even bomb threats and cases of outright violence occurred. A couple of clergymen and a member of Parliament raised the question of whether the authorities should not take action against Jehovah’s Witnesses. Meanwhile, the parents did find a doctor who was willing to respect their faith and to use alternate methods of treatment. Today the boy is alive and healthy.

  • Scully

    I think I may know who the patient was involved in the New Brunswick case.

  • mouthy

    Thank you for this Barbara. Very enlightning ((HUG)

  • DaCheech

    thank you, and may hard work like this save my kids from future wts intervention should it arise.

    i'm trapped and in such cases would pray for the law to help me

  • Dixie

    I met a girl a few years ago that told me that she was kidnapped from a Canadian hospital as an infant to avoid a blood transfusion. At the time, I thought hers was an isolated incident. I had no idea that this was so widespread! I live about 15 min. from the Canadian bethel and it's chilling to think they were hiding children so close to my home.

    Good for Ms. Ryder for speaking out about this! Does anyone know if she posts on this forum? I'm going to write the National Post and thank them for publishing this article. Most newspapers probably wouldn't bother with a JW story. Thanks for posting the link!

  • Atpeaceatlast

    Back in 1986, I know of one occurence involving an elder's hospitalized teenage daughter who needed a blood transfusion. From what I hear from those in the KH I attended, another elder snuck in, pulled the line from her arm and took her out of the hospital. I didn't want believe this was true (this elder was admired for it), but it was one of the final straws for me to leave. I didn't want to be associated with criminal acts and this was one of them in my book.

  • skeeter1

    Wow. Pardon the pun, but this is BIG news!

    As usual, Bethel is trying to pin its mandates as being the parents own acts, not Bethel's coordinated effort. Similar to 1975, where the brothers are now blamed for misunderstanding.

    What's more chilling is that posters are also corroborating this news story with their own accounts. Also, didn't Lawrence Hughes say that the Watchtower took Bethany into hiding? Is this a pattern and practice of the Watchtower?

    If true, is Bethel doing something that is criminal? Is it negligent homicide? Is it evading a court, somehow?

    [edit] Canada

    As defined in the Criminal Code of Canada, murder is a culpable homicide with specific intentions.

    Culpable homicide is defined as causing the death of a human being,

    • By means of an unlawful act;
    • By criminal negligence;
    • By causing that human being, by threats or fear of violence or by deception, to do anything that causes his death; or
    • By wilfully frightening that human being, in the case of a child or sick person. [ 52 ]

    Culpable homicide is elevated to murder when

    • The person who causes the death of a human being means to cause his death, or means to cause him bodily harm that he knows is likely to cause his death and is reckless whether death ensures or not;
    • A person meant to cause the death of a human being or cause him bodily harm that he knows is likely to him death, and by accident or mistake causes death to another human being, notwithstanding that he does not mean to cause death or bodily harm to that person (see transferred intent); or
    • A person, for an unlawful object, does anything he knows is likely to cause death, and thereby causes death to a human being, notwithstanding that he desires to effect his object without causing death or bodily harm to any human being. [ 53 ]
    [edit] First and second degree

    In Canada, murder is classified as either first or second degree. [ 54 ]

    1. First degree murder is a murder which is (1) planned and deliberate, (2) contracted, (3) committed against an identified peace officer, (4) while committing or attempting to commit one of the following offences (hijacking an aircraft, sexual assault, sexual assault with a weapon, aggravated sexual assault, kidnapping and forcible confinement or hostage taking), (5) while committing criminal harassment, (6) committed during terrorist activity, (7) while using explosives in association with a criminal organization, or (8) while committing intimidation. [ 55 ]
    2. Second degree murder is all murder which is not first degree murder. It could be "spur of the moment".
    [edit] Manslaughter and infanticide

    1. Manslaughter is any culpable homicide which is not murder or infanticide. [ 56 ]
    2. Infanticide is the killing of a newly-born child by its mother where the mother's mind was disturbed as a result of giving birth or of consequent lactation. It is a type of homicide but is excluded from murder. [ 57 ]
    [edit] Causation

    In addition, depending on the type of homicide offence, there may be different degrees of causation that the prosecutor is required to prove. The general test for causation in all homicide offences is a significant contributing cause of the victim's death. If the jury finds that the accused committed the murder in the context of one of the offences listed above (criteria (4) of first degree murder), then the jury must be satisifed the accused was a substantial cause of the victim's death before finding the accused guilty of first degree murder. [ 58 ]

    [edit] Penalties [ 59 ]

    The mandatory sentence for any adult (or youth sentenced as an adult) convicted of murder in Canada is a life sentence, with various time periods before a person may apply for parole. The ability to apply for parole does not mean parole is granted.

    Offence/circumstancesParole ineligibility period
    Second degree murder10–25 years
    Second degree murder by an offender previously convicted of murder25 years
    Second degree murder (16 or 17 years old at time of the offence)7 years
    First degree murder25 years
    First degree murder (16 or 17 years old at time of the offence)10 years
    First/second degree murder (14 or 15 years old at time of the offence)5–7 years

    Someone guilty of a single murder could be have his non-parole period reduced to no less than 15 years under the Faint hope clause.

    There is a clause under which a person convicted of any "personal injury offence" meeting the statutory criteria may be declared a "dangerous offender". A dangerous offender is sentenced for an indeterminate period of imprisonment and is eligible for parole after serving at least 7 years. An offender convicted of 1st or 2nd degree murder is ineligible to be declared a dangerous offender. However, an offender convicted of manslaughter can be declared a dangerous offender.

    A youth (12 years old or older) who is not sentenced as an adult does not face a life sentence. Instead, if convicted of first degree murder, they must serve a maximum sentence of 10 years, with a maximum of 6 of those years spent in custody. If convicted of second degree murder, they must serve a maximum of 7 years, with a maximum of 4 of those years spent in custody. [ 60 ]

  • skeeter1

    Ms. Ryder, however, said she is convinced the Supreme Court decision was wrong, at least with respect to Witnesses children. She said such young people are subject to years of indoctrination on the dire consequences of willingly accepting a transfusion -- from excommunication to death on the day of Armageddon, when devout followers are supposed to be saved. Meanwhile, they are under constant scrutiny while receiving hospital treatment, she said.

    The latest Canadian Supreme Court case, 4 of the 7 Justices. said "NO" to the Watchtower Society, finding that the coercive environment within the Witnesses made it impossible for a Jehovah's Witness teeageer to refuse a blood transfusion. The Supreme Court does "get it", though that opinion was hard for any layperson to follow.


  • Scully

    • By causing that human being, by threats or fear of violence or by deception, to do anything that causes his death; or
    • By wilfully frightening that human being, in the case of a child or sick person

    Well, on those two counts - with the threat of being destroyed at Armageddon™ or of being Disfellowshipped™ and shunned by everyone you know if you live, or of not being eligible for a Resurrection™ if you die - the deceptive WTS doctrine itself is violently coercive toward anyone who faces the blood transfusion issue.

    In the case of a child whose only exposure in life has ever been the WTS belief system (which fosters fear and distrust of the medical community), of course that is frightening, even moreso when that child is facing a potentially terminal illness.

Share this