Human Rights -ignored often, not far reaching enough, more than often.
" The shunning does in fact constitute a violation of H.R if it involves denying you access to normal family life."
Define what a "normal family life" is. Who gets to make the choice about what is "normal"? Are you saying there should be a legal authority that would come into a family situation and force other family members to associate with the shunned member?
That's funny. Because human rights have never been so vigorously enforced in my lifetime. Jimmy Carter set a wonderful example. One of the few areas in which he was a superb politician. Lawyers were on the streets in Egypt. Tianmen Square remains in my mind. Tank Man was brave. Human rights have a long way to go but don't state that there is not a robust start. International measures are tricky from a legal and implementation view. The United States has signed many treaties but unless the treaty also contains an enforcement clause, it is a signature.
The New York Times covers these stories daily. I don't understand how the WT is the Antichrist of Human Rights. They are bad enough.
From the Declaration of Human Rights posted by jgnat:
- Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.
This seems to affrim exactly what Phizzy would like to ban on the grounds of human rights.
Phizzy mentioned this:
Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights
Article 8 – Right to respect for private and family life
1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.
2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.
How does this apply to the WT?
I am a trained lawyer. My specialty is American Civil Rights but I find it interesting how the international community and other Western democracies handle human rights. No way does the WT violate Human Rights. You are projecting your hatred of the Witnesses, warranted as it is, onto modern human rights law. There is no fit. Reading the text of conventions, statutes, or even case law is not sufficient. One must consult the legislative history, read the rataification process, and find out what forum violations will be addressed. Next, you have to read the precedent of the tribunal.
It clearly does not say what you believe you are reading. Again, I used to read texts and felt I knew so much. I was mistaken. Sometimes Google is not a friend.