VOTE TO REVOKE UK CHARITY STATUS OF JW CHARITIES! URGENT!

by Blablaman 82 Replies latest jw friends

cedars

didgeridoo - so to summarise your view, the fact that the Watch Tower Society (or its UK affiliates) does not actually satisfy the public benefit criteria is irrelevant. You think that an organization whose sole purpose is to recruit members who will further its own existence whilst depriving them of freedom of thought and endangering their mental, emotional (shunning, child abuse) and physical wellbeing (child abuse, blood) is acting in the public benefit as envisioned under Law?
You're certainly entitled to your opinion. It doesn't mean I have to agree with you. I don't really understand how repeating your viewpoint ad nauseum is the most productive of pursuits.
FYI - It could be argued that the Church of Scientology "advances religion" - but it doesn't enjoy charitable status. Ever wondered why?
Cedars
digderidoo

My words don't need summarising at all and putting into your words, then telling me that's my opinion.
The fact that the public benefit under the Charity Act 2006 is no longer in existence is not my opinion, that Jehovahs Witnesses do not have charitable status isn't my opinion and the public benefit requirement is qualified by 'advancement of religion' is neither my opinion. They can all be checked out as legal fact.
As for the church of Scientology ... it cannot be argued they advance religion as under UK law they are not a religion. So why do you say that it can?
The Charity Commission in 1999 decided on two points of attempt that the Church of Scientology cannot have charitable status.
1) The fact that they do not advance religion as they are not classified as one. In the Court of Appeal in 1970 (R v Registrar General ex part Segerdal), Scientology was classified as a philosophy of existence and not a religion.
2) They failed under the 'public benefit' requirement of advancing moral or spiritual welfare or improvement of the community.
Had they had established one of these points they would be on the Charity Register. Whilst the petitions argument is that under point 2) they should be deleted, under point 1) the WTBTS would stay on in advancing religion ... as Jehovahs Witnesses are a religion ... which is my point.
If you disagree Jehovah's Witnesses are a religion then that should be your line of attack to the Charities Commission, not a petition that would get thrown out of any Parliamentary debate in the first instance, for the very reason that it is flawed.
cedars

didgeridoo
The fact that the public benefit under the Charity Act 2006 is no longer in existence is not my opinion
If "public benefit" is no longer of any consideration in considering charitable status, then maybe you could point to some legal references to prove this to be so? That is not my understanding, but if you can come up with some hard evidence to support your claims, that would be most helpful.
If you're right and I'm wrong, then somebody needs to contact the Charity Commission urgently and tell them to take down the information on their website discussing public benefit criteria and how it relates to the work of charities...
http://www.charity-commission.gov.uk/Charity_requirements_guidance/Charity_essentials/Public_benefit/default.aspx
As regards Scientology, your remarks on their religious status are noted. Even so, you admit that Scientology was scrutinized as to its public benefit irrespective of whether or not it qualified as a religion under UK law. So why aren't Jehovah's Witnesses given similar scrutiny? That was all the petition was requesting - a petition to which you seem so vehemently opposed.
not a petition that would get thrown out of any Parliamentary debate in the first instance, for the very reason that it is flawed.
I think much of your criticism of the petition wording is unfair. Don't forget one is limited to a certain number of words/characters for reasons of brevity, which somewhat limits one's ability to list all the "charitable" organizations used by Jehovah's Witnesses in the UK that unfairly benefit from charitable status. I'm sure if the petition proclamation were to be read out in parliament, the honorable members would be more than capable of getting the gist and pursuing the matter accordingly due to the seriousness of the claims made and the public support (which it so far doesn't have) - unless, that is, you have direct experience in how petitions are handled in parliament that you would care to divulge? Otherwise, it sounds like you're just nitpicking and trying to undermine the petition for some unknown reason.
Cedars
digderidoo

I didn't say public benefit is no longer a consideration, I said it is no longer in existence under the Charites Act 2006. Please read my words you have cut and paste and not put them in your own words. The Charities Act 2011 now applies which also has a public benefit requirement (hence why it's on the website). To confirm this read the piece of legislation itself.
In this instance however, we are talking about the public benefit of advancing religion which English Law sees as a good thing, better than no religion is it's view.
The assumption that MP's would be 'getting the gist' is wrong. They will not debate a different issue (however minor in your view) as to what's been petitioned. Parliamentary time is tight and they will not alter incorrectly worded petitions, you cannot have on the one hand 100,000 people petition one set of facts, but on the other MP's debate something different, that is not how Parliament works.
As for me 'nitpicking', being 'vehemently opposed' or 'trying to undermine the petition for some unknown reason', an ad hominem does tend to shift the focus from the mistakes that have been made here.
cedars

didgeridoo
"public benefit is no longer in existence"
Care to clarify the above statement? It doesn't make much sense to me. We are discussing criteria for establishing charitable status, not endangered species.
we are talking about the public benefit of advancing religion
That's a very narrow interpretation of what public benefit means. Care to back it up with, er... I dunno - references? I doubt you will be able to.
The assumption that MP's would be 'getting the gist' is wrong. They will not debate a different issue (however minor in your view) as to what's been petitioned.
Again, can you provide evidence or confirm actual experience in the parliamentary process to confirm that petitions are regularly thrown out if the wording doesn't precisely specify the legal entities against which the petition has been made, i.e. (in this case) entities representative of Jehovah's Witnesses? It seems I would credit MPs with more intelligence in determining the subtance of the petition and acting upon it than you would.
As for me 'nitpicking', being 'vehemently opposed' or 'trying to undermine the petition for some unknown reason'
All of the above observations are based entirely on what you have said. I haven't attributed any motive, because I don't know you and therefore would rather not guess what motive you might have to attack a petition against the organization's charitable status more vehemently than the organization itself.
Cedars
digderidoo

"public benefit is no longer in existence"
Care to clarify the above statement?
Public benefit is no longer in existence under the Charities Act 2006.
That's a very narrow interpretation of what public benefit means. Care to back it up with, er... I dunno - references? I doubt you will be able to.
Charities Act 2011 s2(1)(a) and s3(1)(c)
Again, can you provide evidence or confirm actual experience in the parliamentary process to confirm that petitions are regularly thrown out if the wording doesn't precisely specify the legal entities against which the petition has been made, i.e. (in this case) entities representative of Jehovah's Witnesses? It seems I would credit MPs with more intelligence in determining the subtance of the petition and acting upon it than you would.
Taken from HM Government e- petition Terms and Conditions ...
"If an e petition does not include a clear statement explaining what action you want the government to take, it will be rejected."
If you care to look at the e petitions rejected there have been 15,772 for one reason or another, though how many for not including a clear statement I haven't the time to go through.
cedars

didgeridoo
Nope, still not clear...
Public benefit is no longer in existence under the Charities Act 2006.
I find that claim intriguing for reasons I will explain. But first, you cited the following legislature...
Charities Act 2011 s2(1)(a) and s3(1)(c)
The above legislature is not relevant to my question. I asked you to back up your assertion that advancing religion is automatically considered to be in the public benefit.
You have responded by quoting section 3, 1(c) which says (in part)...
Descriptions of purposes(1)A purpose falls within this subsection if it falls within any of the following descriptions of purposes—
(a)the prevention or relief of poverty;
(b)the advancement of education;
(c)the advancement of religion;
You will note that section 3 relates to "charitable purpose" and not "public benefit", which despite no longer being in "existence" (your words) has an entire section of the new legislature devoted to it under section 4...
The public benefit requirement(1)In this Act “the public benefit requirement” means the requirement in section 2(1)(b) that a purpose falling within section 3(1) must be for the public benefit if it is to be a charitable purpose.
(2)In determining whether the public benefit requirement is satisfied in relation to any purpose falling within section 3(1), it is not to be presumed that a purpose of a particular description is for the public benefit.
(3)In this Chapter any reference to the public benefit is a reference to the public benefit as that term is understood for the purposes of the law relating to charities in England and Wales.
(4)Subsection (3) is subject to subsection (2).
(For those who are interested, here is the link.)
Notice how, not only does public benefit "exist" under the Charities Act 2006, but the Act specifically states that...
In determining whether the public benefit requirement is satisfied in relation to any purpose falling within section 3(1), it is not to be presumed that a purpose of a particular description[i.e. the advancement of religion]is for the public benefit.
...which is exactly what we are petitioning for, namely for the activities of Jehovah's Witnesses to be scrutinized to ensure that they satisfy the (apparently non-existant) "public benefit" requirements.
As regards your claims that the petition should be rejected for being unclear, obviously the petition hasn't been rejected despite all petitions being checked before they are posted on the government's website.
You cite no personal experience in parliamentary process giving your assertions about the precise wording of the petition no particular gravity, and your claims that MPs will not know what action those signing the petition want them to take sound frankly ludicrous.
Cedars
digderidoo

Cedars, you continue to misquote me.
I have not said that the advancement of religion automatically is considered to be in the public benefit. I have also not said the 'public benefit' requirement does not exist, but rather that it does not exist under the Charities Act 2006.
I don't know what's not to understand, I have stated that the public benefit is no longer in existence under the Charities Act 2006 as stated in the petition question, you then proceed to quote me from the Charities Act 2011 to show that it is. By quoting from the Charities Act 2011 can you not see that this replaces those words in the Charities Act 2006? You then provide a link to 'prove' the public benefit exists in the Charities Act 2006 by providing a link to the 2011 Act. Which is the very thing i said in the first place, that the Charities Act 2006 should not be used.
If you wish to research this further as I have no inclination to seeing that I am continually being misquoted, then you may also wish to consider Charities Act 2011 s3(m)(i) and rather than make a presumption of whether a religion is in the public benefit, check 'under the old law' Thornton v Howe (1862) that publications of a religion (in this case that she was impregnated by the Holy Ghost) are construed to be in the public benefit by mere fact that they are available to the public and ask whether this is applicable to the WTBTS of Britain.
As I am being misquoted I have no interest to further this discussion and wish you well in this endeavour.
cedars

digderidoo
I have stated that the public benefit is no longer in existence under the Charities Act 2006
And I have asked you what you mean by "exist" in this context - a reasonable question to which you have not responded, apart from repeating that "public benefit" is "no longer in existence". I wouldn't recommend you pursue a career in drafting legislature, put it that way.
As I am being misquoted I have no interest to further this discussion and wish you well in this endeavour.
What you call "misquoting", I call "paraphrasing" and trying to make sense out of the meandering arguments you make. I suspect your retreat has more to do with the fact that I have just demonstrated that the Charities Act 2011 indeed stipulates that advancement of religion doesn't automatically satisfy the public benefit requirements for charitable organizations (see the text in bold in my last post) - which refutes much of your argument against this petition (e.g. this below from your post 1713)...
We believe the work of Jehovahs Witnesses does not serve the public benefit (even though advancing a religion does according to legislation)
Cedars
Blablaman

digderidoo
You do tend to talk the talk, alike that of a solicitor, or possibly... a Jehovah Witness...
On that very point...Would you care to explain your statement; “"We hereby petition the charitable status of Jehovahs Witnesses (even though it doesn't have one).”
I interpret this as you saying Jehovah Witnesses do not have Charity Status.
Further to your point on the "advancement of Religion". This is just one of the listed criteria within the Charities Act 2011. All others excluding racial harmony are contentious, if not entirely not fulfilled. These include;
a. “the prevention or relief of poverty; “
I cannot see any manner by which The UK Watchtower Corporation support this clause, other than where it perpetuates the word of Jehovah and employs Jehovah’s Witness’s within The Watchtower’s own organisation.
a. “the advancement of education;”
Similarly, it educates the only the word of Jehovah via The Watchtower Corporation and its publications. It has also been recorded that it does not support University Education.
b. “the advancement of religion;”
This is difficult to answer. Does modifying Holy Scriptures constitute “advancement of religion”? Despite their claim they are Christian, the word Christendom has been published thousands of times within The Watchtower Corporations publications and has never used in a positive context - a contradiction to say the least... which raises the question, “Is the Jehovah Witness Corporation a religion?”
The Watchtower’s interpretation of the Bible is just that, an interpretation which is constantly edited to suit the Corporations needs.
c. “the advancement of health or the saving of lives;”
The Jehovah’s Witness refusal to apply many tried and tested medical methods such as blood transfusion clearly means they do not advance the saving of lives. This is well documented.
d. “the advancement of citizenship or community development;”
I can find no evidence of any Jehovah Witness group, nor The Watchtower Corporation promoting community development...
e. “the advancement of the arts, culture, heritage or science;”
The Watchtower openly contradicts to a historic global scientific study in claims in many ways. This is well documented with their annihilation of millions of years of mankind’s own history.
f. “the advancement of amateur sport;”
I can no record of any advancement of amateur sport by my local or national Jehovah Witness Lodges.
g. “the advancement of human rights, conflict resolution or reconciliation or the promotion of religious or racial harmony or equality and diversity;”
*Yes, they do promote racial harmony. However, Human Rights? I think not. This certainly being the case due to the number of paedophilic legal cases made public over the years. Also, shunning, the fact that we are all (but a chosen few) are going to hell! Furthermore, the manner The Watchtower continually demonises Christendom cannot be interpreted as “promoting religious harmony, equality and diversity”.
h. “the advancement of environmental protection or improvement;”
Again, I can find no record of monies generated by The Watchtower Organisation being spent on “the advancement of environmental protection or improvement”.
i. “the relief of those in need because of youth, age, ill-health, disability, financial hardship or other disadvantage;”
I would welcome any evidence to support this clause. Yet, I can find no evidence that would support this.
j. “the advancement of animal welfare;”
I would welcome any evidence to support this clause. I can find no evidence that would support this.
k. “the promotion of the efficiency of the armed forces of the Crown or of the efficiency of the police, fire and rescue services or ambulance service
This is definitely not the case, as The Watchtower does not condone or support war. I would welcome any evidence to support this clause is being applied. I can find no evidence that would support this clause.
2:1:b” it quotes a charity must; be for the public benefit”.
Given that all but one (subsection point) and its clauses are not supported by Jehovah’s Witness and The Watchtower Corporation, they do appear to not operate “for the public benefit”...

VOTE TO REVOKE UK CHARITY STATUS OF JW CHARITIES! URGENT!

Share this