Both "Mentally Diseased" & Blood Transfusion DF/DA Violate UN Charter

by skeeter1 34 Replies latest watchtower scandals

  • skeeter1

    The United Nations charter is for all UN countries to follow, to its best ability.

    The United Nations is for the right to change one's religion, without coercion. It applies to both countries who thwart changing religions directly, but also holds governments responsible if it allow private actors to coerce people from changing one's religion.

    Coercion is thought of broadly, and goes beyond mere physical force. It seems to me that it would include being called 'mentally diseased' and this is perhaps why the UK has it in their law.

    Coercion also includes denying medical treatment. We know that active Jehovah's Witnesses must not willingly accept a blood transfusion becuase he would be ousted and shunned. This is blatently against UN charter. The coercion is the possible death, fear of being DF/DA and shunned that keeps one from taking a blood transfusion. He has to choose between literal death, or a cutting off in this life. Not because of his personal beliefs. But, because of the Watchtower Society sanctions and policies it enforces on members who decide against their viewpoint.

    The Brittish need to also look at the UN rules as they must also follow it. This whole issue is an international incident. It goes to Brittain, Brazil, every UN country.

    If the WTS is still an NGO as heavily reported, the UN needs to know that this NGO is not in compliance with the UN charter in an area it has responsibility.

    A summary of the UN Charter and decisions regarding religious freedom is found here:

    Here is some of what I found VERY interesting.

    UDHR "Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief [...]."

    ICCPR Art. 18 (1): "Everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This right shall include freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice [...]."

    1981 Declaration of the General Assembly Art. 1 (1): "Everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This right shall include freedom to have a religion or whatever belief of his choice [...]."

    Human Rights Committee general comment 22 Para. 3: "Article 18 does not permit any limitations whatsoever on the freedom of thought and conscience or the freedom to have or adopt a religion or belief of one's choice;".

    Para. 5: "The Committee observes that the freedom to 'have or to adopt' a religion or belief necessarily entails the freedom to choose a religion or belief, including the right to replace one's current religion or belief with another or to adopt atheistic views, as well as the right to retain one's religion or belief."

    50. This prohibition of limitation is reinforced by paragraph 2 of the same article, which provides that "[n]o one shall be subject to coercion which would impair his freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice." The fact that the prohibition of coercion was made explicit shows that the drafters of the Covenant found the freedom provided by paragraph 1 to be so significant that any form of coercion by the State was impermissible, independently of whether the coercion was physical or in the form of State-sponsored incentives. According to the Human Rights Committee:

    "Article 18.2 bars coercion that would impair the right to have or adopt a religion or belief, including the use of threat of physical force or penal sanctions to compel believers or non-believers to adhere to their religious beliefs and congregations, to recant their religion or belief or to convert. Policies or practices having the same intention or effect, such as, for example, those restricting access to education, medical care, employment or the rights guaranteed by article 25 and other provisions of the Covenant, are similarly inconsistent with article 18.2" (general comment No. 22, para. 5).

    51. The Special Rapporteur notes that there is a clear prohibition under international human rights law of coercion to change or maintain one's religion. She also draws attention to the fact that the term "coercion" in article 18, paragraph 21, is to be broadly interpreted and includes pressure applied by a State or policies aiming at facilitating religious conversions. In the case Kang v. Republic of Korea, the Human Rights Committee found the "ideology conversion system" as well as the succeeding "oath of law-abiding system" to be in violation of article 18, paragraph 1, of the Covenant. [Views of the Human Rights Committee in Kang v. Republic of Korea, adopted on 15 July 2003 (CCPR/C/78/D/878/1999), para. 7.2: "As to the author's claim that the 'ideology conversion system' violates his rights under articles 18, 19 and 26, the Committee notes the coercive nature of such a system, preserved in this respect in the succeeding 'oath of law-abidance system', which is applied in discriminatory fashion with a view to [altering] the political opinion of an inmate by offering inducements of preferential treatment within prison and improved possibilities of parole. The Committee considers that such a system, which the State party has failed to justify as being necessary for any of the permissible limiting purposes enumerated in articles 18 and 19, restricts freedom of expression and of manifestation of belief on the discriminatory basis of political opinion and thereby violates articles 18, paragraph 1, and 19, paragraph 1, both in conjunction with article 26."]

    53. In the cases where non-State actors interfere with the right to "have or adopt a religion or belief of [one's] choice", the requirements of article 18 of the Covenant and other relevant international instruments also entail a positive obligation for the State to protect persons from such interference. The Special Rapporteur wishes to re-iterate in this regard that States must ensure that the persons on their territory and under their jurisdiction, including members of religious minorities, can practise the religion or belief of their choice free of coercion and fear. If non-State actors interfere with this freedom, and especially the freedom to change or to maintain one's religion, the State is obliged to take appropriate measures to investigate, bring the perpetrators to justice and compensate the victims (see also E/CN.4/2005/61, para. 42).

  • Mickey mouse
    Mickey mouse

    Can you imagine if we got the UN to investigate the borg?

    Wouldn't they just love that?

  • DesirousOfChange

    Can you imagine if we got the UN to investigate the borg?

    Wouldn't they just love that?

    Dear God, wouldn't that be the "disgusting thing standing in the Holy Place"?



  • sir82

    Umm, hate to burst your bubble & all, but why on earth would the UN care about what a religious entity writes in its journals?

    Religions can't belong to the UN.

    20+ years ago the Watchtower Society joined the UN's Department of Public Information as an NGO. 10+ years ago their membership was terminated.

    The UN Charter applies to member countries. The UN might be interested in cases where countries don't allow religious freedom.

    I just don't see how the UN Charter has anything to do with what the Watchtower Society writes, or any religion for that matter. The WTS is not a country and is not a member of the UN.

  • skeeter1


    READ #53 above. It applies to the WTS.


  • skeeter1

    THE WTS is not an NGO, per se. But, still associated with the UN's OSCE

    Starting this week on Monday, the WTBTS and Jehovah's Witnesses again mingle with the political and religious community as part of the official "Side Events" of the "Human Dimension Implementation Meeting (HDIM)" held in Warsaw, Poland between 26 September – 7 October 2011.
    This year, the WTBTS and the Association of Jehovah's Witnesses join forces with the Office of Muslim Denomination (Bulgarian office) and Human Rights Without Frontiers as partners and conveners to co-present the following program and joint-presentation...
    Read a comprehensive evaluation of the WTBTS’s lobbying efforts with OSCE at:
    The OSCE web site is:
    If you have the time, in the search box type in "Jehovah" and press enter. This will provide a list of over 250 related documents, press releases, and statements."

  • ziddina

    Marking this excellent thread!

  • tenyearsafter

    Hate to say it, but if they allow Muslim countries to sentence people to death for changing religions, I doubt they would do much regarding the WTS....

  • skeeter1

    Perhaps the UN and its member states could consider a fight against the JWs as a training ground for the battle against Islamic countries? Climb the hill before you take on Everest?

    Just because it seems impossible, doesn't mean that we aren't afforded protection under the United Nations. Our countries send $$$$ to the UN, and we must band together.

    Wouldn't it be something if there was a multi-country, thousand people plus demand on the UN?


  • sizemik

    But, still associated with the UN's OCSE

    The OCSE comes under the UN Charter and is a champion of international Human Rights.

    Skeeter . . . you are on to something worth persuing IMO . . . particularly with JW's in the press ATM

    They clearly don't practice what they preach . . . only the vast apostate army knows to what extent.

    Find the right person in the OCSE first . . . (he might be a Russian - seriously)

Share this