Sign this petition - Investigation On Jehovahs Witnesses Religious Policy That Violates Human Rights and Abuses Religious Freedom

by TJ Curioso 170 Replies latest watchtower scandals

• 

  Simon

  The law firm will be looking for individual cases where the WTS or typically the local cong have violated *existing* laws and can be held accountable.

  Nothing really to do with the claims of the poetition as-such but it has the same target audience which will be why they are interested.

  What is any religion but lies and injecting ideas and beliefs into others lives to influence their behavior. Freedom of religion means we tollerate it. The things people are quoting are not meant for 'mommy stopped talking to me' cases but the 'family put a burning tire round my neck' ones. i.e. the real abuses.

  It's not a set of laws (that can be prosecutes), it's to highlight reasons people break existing ones (for most civilised countries).

  As some seem to be trying to apply it, it would cover so many religions and groups for so many reasons that there is zero chance they understand it correctly or it would ever be adopted into law by any country.
• 

  PoconosKnows

  If you read the entire UN report, and links - which I have taken the time to do, at various links by the Special Rapporteur (who heads the religious stigmatization issues), on the UN page also, you will see - any religion can be reported as a violator of religious freedom, when it involves "hate speech" - or causing any violation of the articles of the human rights, "no interference with family" "no interference with correspondence" (that the JW's have wrote about not even to send an email to those members who leave) follows suit. That is why they are being reported. It is not as cut and dry as "separation of church and state" and nothing else will uphold. Because emotional torture - is a form of psychological torture - they will not just look the other way anymore, as some of you suggest that the courts will. Since deaths are occuring - this matter will probably not be ignored. The UN has a committee that sends a report to the institution - (if you read the full links on the UN) suggesting that they change the doctrines that are harmful, or the court can order that policies must be safe, in order to protect society.

  Even the Catholics have now had to "prove" all the policies are now safe (concerning children) - although that is another topic, but it shows the power they have. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/07/11/pope-expands-sex-abuse-laws-in-response-to-u-n-criticisms.html

  The Catholics did not argue (as of late) on the separation of church and state issue - and then nothing was done - instead they are reforming the policies that were harmful to children. Did you see that reporting? Again - that is a different form of abuse - but psychological abuse is categorized as "torture" - and "emotional torture" cannot be "tolerated" - since it is an abuse of religious freedom. A people do have the right to "freely associate" and "correspond" with family by email - if they choose. Also the human right that the JW's "violate" against the right to change a belief in the area of "conversion". The S. Rapporteur talks about being coerced "back" to a religion - once someone makes the decision to go ahead and convert out of it. (family association).

  Please realize something - You do not need cases that prove your case in every instance - case law is an excellent resource, but many cases tried by the DOJ were cases that established the case law. Just like the JW's established some case law for their right to freedom of conscience (ironically). This may be one of those cases. Who knows? It is so true, a right for one is a right for all. Isn't it? You can't say - we object to war because of our consicence, and the court grants that right - and protects your consicence freedom - and then deny people - the right to convert out - without grave consequence of being slandered as "evil" - and unworthy to associate with (in your family). That is so WRONG.

  Each governmental agency now has a complaint procedure - it is not about "just writing a letter" as someone suggested. There are complaint procedures - under EVERY category of abuse. I was on the site - and I saw that with my own eyes. They are following the complaint procedures, without signatures, and they said they have now hundreds of testimonials on families being ripped apart - and varied suicides - as I read through it. I believe this is what they are doing. Zalkin's firm did not announce that they are representing them, just that he has shared the petition with interested parties on his page, because that was the only post people are "buzzing" about.
• 

  besty

  welcome to JWN poconosknows - it would be great to hear more about your personal story and what brings you here - maybe start a new thread in the Friends section

  good to have you here - please feel welcome and continue posting
• 

  adamah

  Poconos, someone can play with the words of the petition, but ultimately it means jack, since you'd instead have to tamper with the words contained in the US Constitution, which would require a Constitutional amendment.

  The UN can't do jack about the internal practices of countries like the US and UK, and the UN charter document contains aspirational goals, ideals that are nice to dream of, but the UN is quite toothless to actually enforce their aspirational statement. It's a pipe-dream, a "wouldn't it be great if" kind of thing.

  As Simon said, the law firm involved is likely using it as a means to reach out to prospective clients who actually have an existing cause of action on which to file, based on an alleged violation of State or Federal law (much like the Conti case in civil court which alleges the WT failed to protect children from known pedophiles). It's good someone with a legal background changed the wording to make it less of an embarrassment, but that doesn't change the fact pattern of the basic environment, as I said in my opening words. Consider the petition as an advertisement for Zelkin law firm, but it's really no more than that, an inexpensive PR effort for some law firm to advertise their services to potential plaintiffs.

  So sign the petition if you want to vent, but realize that it's not likely going to accomplish anything; with or without that petition, nothing is going to change within your or my lifetimes (or even within the your grandchildren's lives), esp when 75% of Americans are religious and believe in God(s). The move towards allowing the gov't to meddle into religious practices is going to be protested and fought by ALL organized religions (which have very deep coffers), but also by any citizens (which BTW includes atheist communitie such as the Atheist Community of Austin, one of their agendas being to insure a separation of church and state continues) who actually understand the advantage of keeping religion and gov't as separate entities, AS LONG as all applicable laws are respected.

  Adam
• 

  PoconosKnows

  Chaserious, and AdamH - Who knows if this will fly? Nobody. I don't. But:

  To suggest that you need case law to go forward is not true.

  To suggest that they cannot do anything but "write a letter" is not true, to the UN.

  To suggest that nothing has been markedly done yet - is not true. Even the Catholics have now had to "prove" all the policies are now safe (concerning children) - although that is another topic, but it shows the power they have. This happened - this year - after years of the church not changing policy... http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/07/11/pope-expands-sex-abuse-laws-in-response-to-u-n-criticisms.html

  If the Catholics are heeding to the UN's suggestion to change policy, what makes you think that the JW's will not be made a subject of embarrasment by the UN - being marked as religious policies that need change, if they are proven that are harmful to society, if they cause suicide?

  Is bullying permitted in this day and age that cause suicide? It was when I was growing up. Things have changed - for the better. (Thank goodness). This is a form of religious bullying that is creating a new topic of investigation.

  By the way - they are not saying in the title of the petition that they are intending to sue via a class action sweep / they are pushing that the policies get investigated - for the policy change.

  Okay, thank you Besty- I want to speak with others on the other topics in the forums - I have just left this org. in Feb. and want to connect with everyone. I am glad to have found this network this week - because this topic lured me in... : ] I have been a witness since birth, and left in February.
• 

  Simon

  Catholics are not really acting due to UN pressure, they are acting due to public pressure from court cases (real law being applied) and having to pay out millions in compensation for breaking these laws. The UN is just an organisation that tries to publicise it's own money spending endeavors like others do to justify their existence - just because something is in some media report doesn't mean it's a true reflection of reality.

  Also, the Catholic church is a massive organisation with interests in many countries and NGOs etc... and have a lot more to do with the UN. The WTS would no doubt revel in any 'attack' by the UN who for many years they have painted as a bogey-man that will one day be out to get them. Nothing the UN says would embarass the WTS (other than telling the world that they were once a member!).

  It comes down to this: we're talking about families not talking to each other. That's it.

  There is no conceivable law that could ever be drafted and enforced that could change this without trampling over way more people's rights and making a country into the most intense police-state imaginable.

  Are people saying they want a law that could compel an abused child to talk to their abuser? Or force an atheist parent to allow their dogmatic religious relatives access to their children?
• 

  Simon

  I am glad to have found this network this week - because this topic lured me in

  PoconosKnows: I think you should disclose if you are the author of the petition. It's disingenuous to pretend that you just have some passing interest in it.

  I'm really not impressed with the repeated AAWA behavior of sneaking in and commenting on things without being honest about the true nature of the persons involvement.
• 

  PoconosKnows

  I believe what is being said here is, a religion should not have the power to impose "threats" upon placing any restrictions on human rights, or it should be looked at as a form of extremism, if it results in deaths by suicide. The JW's are a corporation - that act as a religious institution, and any corporation that imposed "hate speech" upon blacks or gays would not be tolerated - so why call people "mentally diseased" (in the present day - with the present zero tolerance of stigmatization "craze" that is sweeping our nation) those who wish to convert? Tarnishing the reputation of those from their own family associations? It needs to be investigated. But I do believe, if anything is done by the legal departments of the agencies, this has to spill out to the other religions that shun, as well. I just never knew - until reading all the forums on the internet - how many suicides and depression, and suicide attempts (that failed) - this policy caused. It was upsetting, to say the very least. And shameful, that any policy could have the "power" to compel people to lose their life. Whether it was intentional or not.
• 

  Chaserious

  No, you don't need case law to proceed, but it's awfully hard to proceed in the face of established contrary law. There is an abundance of case law saying that the government can't do what you're asking it to do. A comparison with the sex abuse scandals is not helpful. Sexual abuse of children is obvious criminal behavior under US law, while shunning is clear protected behavior. I'm curious, Poconoknows, what you think the remedy should be? It's easy to say to investigate, but what should be the ultimate resolution? Would the government have to review their literature before it's printed to make sure it's acceptable? Would parents be reported for not inviting their grown children over for meals? I'm genuinely curious what those in favor of the petition think the end game would be. Also, welcome to the forum.
• 

  PoconosKnows

  Simon - are you singling me out because I am passionately defending my original post - and I do not appreciate people putting down my remarks, as you can see by the history of this thread. My comments and points were torn apart since my original post. I am defending them - 1 by 1 -like anyone else did - when they see unfair remarks on a topic. From my search, I do believe AAWA writers are responsible for the writings. Wow. I didn't know my freedom of expression of thought was not welcomed here.