Randy Wall case linked to on JWdotORG

by neat blue dog 15 Replies latest watchtower scandals

• 

  neat blue dog

  Under "Breaking News" on JWdotORG, there is a link to a court case in Canada that was just resolved on May 31st.

  https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/17101/index.do

  It's in regard to him being disfellowshipped, and the court says they can't get involved. JWdotORG gives this statement about their victory:

  the disfellowshipping arrangement should remain free from court intervention. We rejoice in this vindication of Jehovah’s righteous standards.

  It also appears that Catholics, Mormons, Sikhs and others were friends of the court or something like that. Here are some quotes from the actual court decision:

  Mr. Wall argues that a contractual right (or something resembling a contractual right) exists between himself and the Congregation. There was no such finding by the chambers judge.
  ...
  members of a congregation may not think of themselves as entering into a legally enforceable contract by merely adhering to a religious organization
  ...
  Mr. Wall also argued his rights are at stake because the Judicial Committee’s decision damaged his economic interests in interfering with his client base. On this point, I would again part ways with the courts below. Mr. Wall had no property right in maintaining his client base. As Justice Wakeling held in dissent in the court below, Mr. Wall does not have a right to the business of the members of the Congregation
  ...
  Had Mr. Wall been able to show that he suffered some detriment or prejudice to his legal rights arising from the Congregation’s membership decision, he could have sought redress under appropriate private law remedies. This is not to say that the Congregation’s actions had no impact on Mr. Wall; I accept his testimony that it did.
  ...
  This Court has considered the relevance of religion to the question of justiciability. In Bruker v. Marcovitz, 2007 SCC 54, [2007] 3 S.C.R. 607, at para. 41, Justice Abella stated: “The fact that a dispute has a religious aspect does not by itself make it non-justiciable.” That being said, courts should not decide matters of religious dogma.
• 

  days of future passed

  I hate it when bullies get away with things.

  Where's this breaking news on JW.....org?

  Breaking News - Millions have now been paid out on Child Sexual Abuse claims! We rejoice over Satan's system of things being more righteous than us!
  
• 

  Simon

  Not a surprising decision at all and not surprising to see religions band together when any one of them is threatened - they are all in the same industry after all and protecting that industry is more important to them than any claim that the other is "false religion".

  People need to step back and picture a world where the government can come and tell everyone who they have to talk to and do business with. How would that work? What kind of a world would it be?

  IMO it makes absolutely no sense to attempt to fight these kind of non-starter legal issues and either the person was very determined and stubborn to do so or they had very bad advice that they had a snowballs chance in hell of winning when they clearly did not.

  The freedoms we enjoy are very important. Trying to remove those freedoms is the wrong approach to stopping some of the 'wrongs' that happen plus people need to accept personal responsibility for the part they played in their experience.

  In this particular case, I wonder how much of the real estate business he enjoyed would have been enjoyed were he not a member of the congregation. I'm sure all the 'loss' was only counted one-way, but without factoring in the benefits enjoyed. Ultimately, membership and association is something we have a right to enjoy but not demand and wanting to force people to have you as a member of something you don't really want to be a member of seems, well, Marxist ... Groucho.
• 

  Half banana

  The moral of the story is never tangle with Jehovah's Witnesses.

  At first you may be attracted to them because they seem like decent people but like all JWs you could end up wasting your life trapped under the 'bewitchment' of a dictatorial cult. Their power is real only as long as you believe it is.

  In the real world regulated by enforceable law, the JW organisation for all its host of taboos and rulings, is a non runner.
• 

  JaniceA

  I'm not surprised by it but I loathe the WT just a bit more for gloating about the travesty that they get away with.
• 

  joe134cd

  People in the past have tried to take wt to court over DFing and all have failed. I’m not surprised he lost.
• 

  Listener

  In a unanimous decision released on May 31, 2018, the Supreme Court of Canada recognized that the disfellowshipping arrangement should remain free from court intervention. We rejoice in this vindication of Jehovah’s righteous standards.—Isaiah 33:22.

  They are are so quick to boast about it that they make a claim which is not true. They make a general statement but their victory is only limited to this case and the precedents already set out by the courts.

  There could arise circumstances that due to the disfellowshipping arrangement of the church an individual would be able to successfully sue through court involvement.

  During the court hearing it was acknowledged when the courts could become involved - it relates to inflicting intentional emotional distress.

  This is from a website advising when a religion could be sued

  EMOTIONAL DISTRESS

  The infliction of emotional distress is grounds for a lawsuit in most jurisdictions. However, it is strictly limited to the intentionaIlinfliction of emotional distress. That is, the plaintiff must prove that the actions of the defendant were motivated by the desire to cause emotional distress.

  I imagine this is the very reason a JC will be delayed when it comes to the Elders attention that there is a chance of suicide.

  It may also be a reason why many Elders will take a step backwards in dealing with a JW who says they are dealing with personal problems.

  It would be good if JWs/exJWs considered how best they could use this fact before or during a JC.

  As an example, the Elders could be told that if they go ahead with dfing they will be responsible for the shunning that results from their public announcement which you feel will cause untold emotional damage to you.

  Its no wonder that they like to say that it's not them that are causing this distress but the blame lays squarely on the shoulders of the dfd one, who by their own actions, brought this on himself.

  The idea that they 'desire to cause emotional distress' could possibly be demonstrated by the idea that they use disfellowshipping as a form of blackmail and not simply to keep their congregations clean since they choose to ignore sinners who don't confess and there are not two witnesses.

  Their disfellowshipping arrangement is cruel and it was pointed out by Judge Mclellan at the ARC.
• 

  lastmanstanding

  It is the courts and lawmakers of the land(s) who bear the greatest responsibility when it comes to ongoing crimes. They allow Watchtower to continue unhindered.

  Imagine if you will, a grand courtroom. All the lawmakers at the front. The courtroom gallery filled with watchful bourgeois.

  The presecutor rises and commands that the evidence be displayed for all to see, a live video stream of children being abused and elders doing a coverup.

  (The parsimonious lawmakers watch the evidence as the gallery reels in anguish.)

  One of the lawmakers, his hand rubbing his beard utters the first response “It does seem that there is reason to perhaps look into this... at a much later date “

  Another lawmaker concurs, “yes, there is reason to believe something here is worthy of further analysis “

  Yet another lawmaker exclaims “this has been going on a long time already, and we have in place, somewhere, people who are looking into this”

  A final lawmaker chimes in, “I don’t see anything different here than happens anywhere else, I vote we do nothing...”

  All the while, in the background, the live feed evidence shows children being molested by animals wearing pants and the gallery screams “JUSTICE “... but none is found, the lawmakers bamg their gavels and go for lunch.
• 

  AbusedandPissed

  How is this a narrowly crafted decision? The court actually made it very broad and far-reaching. The court ruled as a precedent that it is not for civil courts to interfere with the internal operations including discipline of its members and who they choose to allow to be members. The court ruled that the only time the court can interfere is if there was a legally established legal right, such as a contract or property rights.
• 

  lastmanstanding

  Abused, you are correct. It is very, very broad and the Sharia Law zealots will be sending a big THANKYOU to WTBTS.

  Now, the Sharia zealots can argue that it’s their religious right to beat their 16yr old daughter to within an inch of her life.