PORTUGAL: Filed a petition to the parliament to erase the legal entity of the Jehovah's Witness
Even without "lying" what do you think governments are going to do? Even if they went around and flat out said it what do you expect governments to do. In the US Watchtower won the Bryan case in Washington. This was even as the court says assuming all of the facts in the most favourable light of the non-moving party, the person disfellowshipped, there is nothing that a civil government can do to stop disfellowshiping.
Even in Australia the only part that the ARC was able to bring up for disfellowshipping is that involving those who experienced child abuse. A government would have to treat religions differently between themselves and most western developed nations have prohibitions on that.
And I know that people on here like to say Watchtower and JWs are are not a religion but is a cult, but that is not how the law sees it. Even this thought that Watchtower falls under the B.I.T.E. model for cults that is not a legal thing. The model and in fact, the whole thing of brainwashing by a cult has not established a science and doesn't work in courts or dealing with lawmakers. They can only investigate using means that is generally accepted by the scientific community.
My point exactly john. I allow room for the fact that its US law im familiar with and this petition isnt for the us, but typically western law will laugh this petition out of its sight. Again, im not judging the effort negatively, just being realistic
John Davis Even in Australia the only part that the ARC was able to bring up for disfellowshipping is that involving those who experienced child abuse.
Because Child Abuse was their remit, not shunning. As much as I'm sure they wanted to bring it up as a separate issue they could only do so in connection with child abuse.
As legal experts they are trained to use language in a very specific way...only bringing up what is relevent to the point they are making.
John Davis The model and in fact, the whole thing of brainwashing by a cult has not established a science and doesn't work in courts or dealing with lawmakers.
Try telling that to Charles Manson.
Diogenesister sure I would tell him that. In fact, the courts in California told his followers the same thing when they charged and were found competent to stand trial for their crimes. In a number of cases in Western Countries, people have tried to claim to brainwashed by a charismatic leader and time and time again in both civil and criminal cases those have been dismissed or found to be liable for their own actions.
Shunning interferes with one's right to a normal family life. Article 8 of the E.C.H.R.
Perhaps the petition will not work....this time.
Psychology is a soft science and it's true to say It takes time for the requisite amount of research, and Knowledge, to accumulate to the point where government's do act. Take PTSD, for example.
But give it time. Each piece of activism tilts the balance more and more in our favour. Our time will come, nay-Sayers.
You point out the European Convention on Human Rights which is what I am assuming you mean as the European Court of Human Rights wouldn't have articles. note the article that you point to:
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.
Please note that the only condition that is placed is upon a public authority, not a private group or individual. In fact all of the articles in the E.C.H.R. is to prevent public authorities from interfering with these rights.
John sure Tex Watson stood trial, but as the main killer of Tate, he only got life. Manson got the death penalty, so they obviously do accept undue influence. (To this day he blames it on Manson incidently).
Brainwashing is not an accepted scientific theory. In fact, as reviewed by the court in US v Fishman, Lifton's seminal work showed that in order for this theory of thought reform requires extreme physical coercion not just that of mental coercion. In Molko v Holy Spirit Association for the Unification of the World Christianity, not only did the court reject Dr Singer and Dr Ofshe but so did the American Psychological Association and the American Sociological Association. They rejected the theory because of the methodology used in their research.
Are there are time periods involved?