U.N. United Nations Human Rights Committee and Jehovahs Witnesses have ongoing relationship

by TheWonderofYou 20 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • TheWonderofYou

    I appreciate the work of the U.N.

    JW appreciate and share the values of the U.N. too.

    JW-attorneys submit country reports to the Human Rights Committee. Next session of the HRC will be from 9 October - 6 November 2015 in Geneve, Switzerland.

    Human Rights Committee


    1. Click on the upcoming events, 115 session.

    The CCPR treaty is the international covenant for civil and political rights, of which the implementation is reviewed.

    2 Go to the state reports for Korea or the country report task force for Kazakhstan

    3 open Info from CSO, info from civil society organisations for the list of issues (LOI)

    4 Here you find the submissions for these countries to the HR coucil by the European Association of Jehovahs Christian Witnesses, short always EAJCW.

    Tomorrow i will add more on this subject.

  • Gorbatchov

    This is not new, the warm relationship is a long relationship, since +/- the year 2000.

    My opinion is, from a human rights point of view, it is a good thing.

    At the, critical other hand, the Society has to be transparant about it.

    All those hidden semi political connections do not mach with theology and doctrine of our sect.


  • Vidiot


    The WTS "knows a guy who knows a guy"... who happens to be the Wild Beast.


    They can't support human rights with the UN and label the UN as the "disgusting thing." What will be the priority, the WTBTS's ego, or human rights?


  • berrygerry

    What are human rights?

    Rights of an institution (a WTS corp. or subsidiary)?

    Or rights of a "human?"

  • TheWonderofYou

    Thank you for your comments and all comments of other members who wrote about the same matter for many years in the past and attracted my attention.

    Gorbatchov: "This is not new"
    I didnt want to write the most boring thread about the U.N. of the decade at all ;-), but I think the case has never been worked up by the GB committees, the GB in fact kept silent. And would it not be fine to have a overview about the countries in which JW work in the field of freedom of belief? Can you name 5 countries where this has happened in the last years. Turkey, Korea, Egypt, Ukraine, Russia......? If I find more time I would like to compile a chart, because we get no info of the GB where the religion fights for fundamental freedoms as if that would be shame. Should not we as aggrieved parties be better informed and be able to speak about these efforts publicly too like the WT-attorney speak publicly?
    " the warm relationship is a long relationship, since +/- the year 2000."
    Im not sure if the relationship between U.N. HQ and WT HQ on human rights issues has not already begun many years before 2000, because there was a rumor about GB president XY possessing a UN-passport. We remember the publications about the U.N. in the Awake magazine in the 80s an 90s like the positive coverage about the OSCE nowadays. This would be a good sign that the GB always had a heart for humanity but that they sadly were not in the position to work up the matter correctly.
    "At the, critical other hand, the Society has to be transparant about it."
    As you see I uploaded my thread in the section "practices, belief, doctrine" and not "coverups, scandals" because I protest against practice of duplicity and triplicity that is now at work. And I protest also against the doctrine as well, the doctrine of equalisation of any U.N. department with a "scarled coloured wild beast" or the "disgusting thing".So I think that the case is not worked up at all and a solution has to be looked for immediately.
    "All those hidden semi political connections do not mach with theology and doctrine of our sect."
    That is on point I want to empasize later. Is U.N. cooperation realy a "semi political connection"? This is certainly the most interesting theological question. Where is the beginning of "politics" and what is the duty of a citizen.If the U.N. had the same authority like a government, I would rather see no "political" connection, because JW dont promote a political party but only give "imparital" information about human rights. As JW have no political party how could they have inter-politicas connection to the U.N. Here a clear explanation or standpoint of the GB would help indeed.
    Vidiot "The WTS "knows a guy who knows a guy"... who happens to be the Wild Beast."
    My opinion is that the biblical parables only deal with the bad forces in the world in general and therefore do not give precise names or identify the world empires in the image of Daniels' statue and there have been seen various interpretations in the past.Identifiying a certain world empire with a "wild beast" of a parable is biblicistic misinterpretation. After all each government has a responsibilty and authority a minister for the humankind deviated from higher "divine" principles, how could than the whole government or the whole inter-government U.N.O. be a monster, as if there would not be the good any more in the world?
    What are human rights ?
    berrygerry: What are human rights Rights of an institution (a WTS corp. or subsidiary)? Or rights of a "human?DATA -Dog What will be the priority, the WTBTS's ego, or human rights?

    You gain the right if you campain for something loud enough, dont you?

  • TheWonderofYou

    The U.N. is an intergovernmental organisation with own legal status (whereas the OSCE is regional organisation without international legal status.) The committees of the U.N. have thus higher authority than a single state. Observing of U.N. treaties has priority. The form of address for heads of international organisation is thus "His/Her Excellency, His/Her Eminence"!. From a christian view the United Nations have to be respected like a governmental authority and even more, because it is a supragovernmental or intergovernmenal government with own legal status and constitution.

    Informing UN committes about the situation in a member state or implementing rule of law standards or policy in a country is not to be seen as political partiality in my eyes.

    1) An UN partnerhip as NGO is comparable on single state level with the Red Cross ( NGO) being partner of the Department of the Interior in the course of civil defence.

    2) Being simple an Informantory-NGO that submits reports on violation of religious freedom or helps to implement human rights could be compared on community level with informing the town hall or the mayor about human rights situation in the community.
    All these christian activities would not be political or partially but rather honorable and respectable. You could say it is even a civic duty not to look away in case human rights are violated.

  • TheWonderofYou

    Certainly many of you here on board had similar banal ideas of comparsion sometimes, did you know that:

    In the case that an christian employee of the Red Cross is engaged in a committment of the Interior Minister because the Red Cross is an NGO partner of the government department, that would certainly not imply that he shares all values of the Ministry of defense e.g. shooting although both governmental bodies belong to the same government, would it?

    Just as well if a WT-lawyer engages as NGO-representative in a committment regarding religious law of the Home office or the United Nations Department of Human Rights committee, that would certainly not imply that he shares all values of the Ministry of defense of a partner state nor that he would agree to any military stratagy or military security policy of a state partner of the U.N. because there are different responsibilites, limits of responsibilites. A policmen is not a soldier, although both are working for the government. He would be a law-abiding citizen though.

    I know that's banal, sorry.

  • TheWonderofYou

    I think that supporting the United Nations is not necessarily infringement of christian neutrality.
    Why should it be called then as a whole - generalized a "scarlet-coloured wild beast' it only one part is military policy like in any other government?

    What do you think of my comparisons.

    1) about neutrality

    Take a policeman, a soldier, an ambulance man, a laywer of the Home secretary, a nurse of a public hospital, an OSCE military expert for disarming, an expert in refugee aide or an economic expert that invests in poor, unsecure regions..... they work all for peace and security , social and humanitarian stability but each of them in different areas, some in civil committments of peace and security others like the soldier in a military committment of security.
    - The policeman could support security by fighting against drugs,- the ambulanceman support security through civil defense,
    - The OSCE military expert could work in a special disarming committment and would work out measures to disarm conflict parties or implement equal standards in OSCE Participating states,
    - the financial or social expert could through clever investment in stabile companys or schools to hedge new secure jobs and education,
    - the "religious law attorney" could carry out a committment for the Ministry of Interior to support the civil security in regard of freedom of belief, assembly or personal freedoms of women or establishing a charity.
    - the Ministry of defense would work out military strategies with the NATO.

    All these honorable persons would in their own field work for peace and security in different U.N. structures.

    >>>Neither does simply the fact that the a single state supports "peace and security" as general policy by various measures mean that a christian citizen cannot be policeman or ambulanceman or laywer in a department like the Home office.

    >>>Nor does the fact that the inter-governmental United Nations supports "peace and security" on global level by various different measures not constitute a hindrance to support human rights of freedom of belief or freedom of assembly or implementing fundamental law standars in the countries.

    2) Is supporting a project always friendship with the world

    Co-ooperation, support, assistance vs membership with the U.N.-"world" does likewise not necessarily mean bad conduct or "friendship"

    I try to compare the cooperation with U.N. or OSCE structures on the subject of human rights with working as an employee in a project an this together with other colleagues at a employee meeting.


    Project cooperation

    The personal freedoms, rights and obligations in a project cooperation, the " constitution " of the project could be discussed in a teamwork.

    The goal would be secure and peaceful co-operation in the team and in the company, a good living with each other.

    And that does certainly not mean that all employees share all values and become friends, e.g. they would not obligated to pray with each other, or to speak a dirty language, or to have unclean conduct with immoral thoughts and relations at the meetings, they wouldn even not be obligated to listen to poor jokes or about the latest developments of the gun possession. It would be simply a job as usual for a better project living, a "conditional partnership".

    There is no danger at all in a fair respectul cooperation to tint yourself with someones dirty thoughts. It would rather be an employee's and citizens' duty to co-operate with governmental structures.

    I think that co-operating with U.N. and other govermental structures in human rights is a civil or moral duty.


    U.N. Charta



    But what is with the U.N Charta, can christians support a U.N. charta as they already did by publishing information about the Int. Declaration of human rights?

    Was in 2002 the dis-associating of the Department of Public Onformation of the U.N done because of

    - public and internal turmoils after the public uncovering of a duplicity between NGO partnership (1300 NGOs) and the condeming as false hope of mankind?

    - or because of the awareness that the U.N. charta could not be supported?

    - or because the DPI Department was connected to much with the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) ?

    Department of Public Information http://www.un.org/en/hq/dpi/

    NGO page http://outreach.un.org/ngorelations/

    My opinion: There maybe some areas, or activities in the U.N. structure like in any government that are difficult (military), and the hopes of the U.N. maybe lately unaccomplishable or overexagerated, but that does not mean that it is a "false hope" for the mankind, that U.N. works against Gods kingdom. Hope and working for security and peace is important in every area of our life and important for governments.

  • cappytan

    Article 18 in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states: "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."

    The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) is a declaration adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 10 December 1948.

    Interesting that an organization that supports the psychological abuse of members who decide to change their religion or belief also has dealings with Human Rights organizations that condemn that activity.

Share this