by AndersonsInfo 60 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
Nice one Barbara. Let's hope this is the death knell for the 7 headed beast in Brooklyn.
I'm also hoping that the Australian paedo thing will mean Geoff Jackson will get arrested if he goes home. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!
Well, why not? Look how the GB of the WTB$ has messed our lives up!!!
The WTS. are indeed guilty of inciting Hate Speech on to people, as defined by many governmental laws.
Hate speech is, outside the law, any communication that disparages a person or a group on the basis of some characteristic such as race, gender, ethnicity, nationality, religion, sexual orientation, or other characteristic. [1] [2]
In law, hate speech is any speech, gesture or conduct, writing, or display which is forbidden because it may incite violence or prejudicial action against or by a protected individual or group, or because it disparages or intimidates a protected individual or group. The law may identify a protected individual or a protected group by race, gender , ethnicity , nationality , religion , sexual orientation , gender identity , [3] or other characteristic. [4] In some countries, a victim of hate speech may seek redress under civil law , criminal law , or both. A website that uses hate speech is called a hate site. Most of these sites contain Internet forums and news briefs that emphasize a particular viewpoint. There has been debate over how freedom of speech applies to the Internet. Conferences concerning such sites have been sponsored by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees . [5] International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) also states that "any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law". [6] On May 3, 2011, Michael O'Flaherty with the United Nations Human Rights Committee published General Comment No. 34 on the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which among other comments expresses concern that many forms of "hate speech" do not meet the level of seriousness set out in Article 20. [7]
Critics [who?] [vague] have argued that the term "Hate Speech" is a modern example of Newspeak , used to silence critics of social policies that have been poorly implemented in a rush to appear politically correct . [8] [9] [10]
There is an international consensus that hate speech needs to be prohibited by law, and that such prohibitions override or are irrelevant to guarantees of freedom of expression. The United States is perhaps unique among the developed world in that under law hate speech regulation is incompatible with free speech. [11]
The WTS. are indeed guilty of inciting Hate Speech on to people, as defined by many governmental laws.
No argument from me; I agree. Even so, the WTS could persuasively argue in turn that it is itself subject to the hate-speech of (some) ex-members. I understand where people's outrage comes from, yet still find some of the written comments against the WTS would fit the "in law" definition of hate speech, especially the publicizing of names of JWs wwho are alleged to have committed serious crimes against children. The last time I checked, under western law, someone is innocent until proven guilty - although the internet is a tempting way to short-circuit legal niceties and blacken reputations.
Even so, the WTS could persuasively argue in turn that it is itself subject to the hate-speech of (some) ex-members.
The difference in this situation is that its an enforced mandate from a legally recognized organization that is perpetrating
this unlawful act on to private individual citizens.
As another of the many examples that could be used, suppose a practicing JWS comes out and says that she or he is gay and wants to leave
the religion all together. That person is publicly and openly told by all of the JWS that he or she is to be shunned and not talked to, invoking
a state of hatred upon that person, even toward that person's family. Why ? because of that person's sexual orientation.
As another of the many examples that could be used, suppose a practicing JWS comes out and says that she or he is gay and wants to leave
the religion all together. That person is publicly and openly told by all of the JWS that he or she is to be shunned and not talked to, invoking
a state of hatred upon that person, even toward that person's family. Why ? because of that person's sexual orientation.
I do see what you mean and don't want to absolve the WTS of its responsibility to ensure people are treated respectfully regardless of sexual oritentation. At the same time, as my usually 'loving' JW aunt said to me a few decades ago when she 'discovered' I was gay: "It's not being gay that's the problem, Stephen; it's your disregard for Jehovah's standards". I never thought she hated me or my orientation. On the other hand, I knew she disapproved of my lifestyle and once I was disfellowshipped, stopped talking to me.
It's all in the way rejection is framed, isn't it? Seldom, if ever, do JWs say, "I utterly detest and hate you". What they're more inclined to say (at least to your face, if at all, is something like: "Jehovah loves you and wants you to be humble and repent and return". Yes, I know they often accompany such statements with more than a whiff of disdain and disgust. But their spoken words seldom constitute "hate speech" from a legal perspective. That's the issue: You won't hear the WTS stating that apostates deserve to die; you will hear the WTS saying apostates are troublemakers and not to be trusted. Hate speech? Possibly. But if you want to drive this allegation through court, you'll need a wheelbarrow stuffed full of $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ and then the outcome will probably come down on the side of freedom of religion.
marked
But their spoken words seldom constitute "hate speech" from a legal perspective.
Isn't saying publicly that this person is evil, inciting hatred upon that person, based upon wholly of sexual orientation.
We all know of the social consequences of a religious order selectively calling an individual evil.
Is this not inciting hatred ?
Saying or proclaiming a social behavior is evil is one thing, individually pointing a finger at one singularly and publicly insinuating
that this person should not be associated with is something quite different.
Kick Watchtower Ass Brazil....
(((Woody22))), I feel ya! It's coming up on 24 years that my jw mom has completely shunned me.
If anything transpires from this case, it may be that a little wiggle room will be provided for those jws who don't want to shun their friends and relatives.
" I sincerely hope it starts a Worldwide prescedent"
Yeah, Brazil starting a worldwide prescedent - I hope you've got the time or life span to wait for just about a trillion years.
